Wow... Just wow.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/child-gunned-cop-answering-door-holding-wii-controler/#axzz2tyjjL99c
So THIS had to happen. Because "fuck you, I'm the police, that's why".
So THIS had to happen. Because "fuck you, I'm the police, that's why".
0
Comments
However I am loath to blame the police in general for the bad actions of individual officers. People who are trusted with power by the state should certainly be held to a higher standard and bad actors should be reprimanded severely (in this case with possible criminal prosecution depending on further investigations into the detail of what actually happened) but I think people are a little too quick to take one individual incident as representative of the norm, particularly when it comes to law enforcement.
Do you read The Libertarian Republic regularly? I like how it is more lighthearted than most similar types of sources.
I researched it and apparently he's right.
He's called AlphaOmegaSin. Also a metalhead.
(sorry, I HAD to say this, I'm joking only)
This sounds like an example of a Lawful Stupid... shoot first, questions later :l or the example of a Chaotic Evil person trying-to-be a cop?
I agree with Boo again, there are policemen that are very good persons that just keep order and safety, but then there's something called corruption and... well, this happens.
But once in a while, a cretin like that stupid cow comes in and screws up everything.
She should be relieved of all duty of the police, sent to jail for killing in cold blood an unarmed boy civilian and the police should apologize publicly for it.
The real policy that causes problems with law enforcement is "no-knock raids" where they try to catch suspects by surprised while armed. It is a safety precaution in case the suspects violently resist arrest (which is a legitimate argument) but at the same time it has led to a lot of unjustified killings of innocent suspects.
You guys should like...fight or something
I don't know about the specifics of the police officer in question, but I cannot imagine being a police officer in a country where guns are so prevalent that pretty much any dispute or criminal act could degenerate into a gun battle. US police officers really do put their lives on the line every day in a way that most other police forces do not have to deal with. I mean all US police officers are essentially 'firearms officers' in the UK.
The fact that the gun lobby has somehow persuaded so many Americans that guns are good for society is an incredible (and sad) demonstration of the power of 'free propaganda', where a country's media is 'free', but definitely not fair, let alone responsible.
In simpler terms, here in the States the thought that "everybody should own a gun" is uncommon and not in the mainstream, but the idea that "You and I should be able to own a gun because others might posses a weapon with intent to do harm" is the more commonly held position.
I think that the fact that some people think "many Americans think guns are good for society" is actually a better example of sensationalist journalism than what you mentioned. That is not a commonly held belief, but something that many in the media like to discuss (most of the debates on the big four networks involve two different extremists screaming at eachother). What is shown in these cases is not what is depicted by polling data, and if you ask most Americans (would be anecdotal evidence, of course) the message you would receive would be that most people here are not happy with the prevalence of weapons in society, even if they are for the freedom to own firearms or own one themselves.
I could probably have worded what I said better. But my point is precisely that so many Americans believe that "I should be able to own a gun because others might posses a weapon with intent to do harm", which, for somebody with very much a British/European attitude on the issue, I find absolutely insane, and find it hard to believe how an entire society can be led to hold such attitudes so widely.
If firearms were generally less accessible, then there would be less firearm related incidents. That is common sense and logic. If there were less people walking around with guns, you would feel less incentivised to carry a gun as a precaution.
Yes violent criminals will find a way to arm themselves as best as they can, but that's what trained specialist firearms officers are for.
Imagine if (it will never happen) a law was passed that confiscated most guns from American civilians, except those with a legitimate reason to own firearms, like sportsmen, then there would be much fewer guns in circulation, and thus normal police officers would not need to expect to encounter firearms in every incident, and thus would not need to carry guns themselves.
There has been an 'arms race' within American society, where the equivalent of broken bottles, baseball bats and knives in other countries, are firearms in the US. This means that lots of incidents that would result in minor injuries elsewhere results in serious injury and death in the US.
Britain has a knife problem in some big cities, but generally, it's much harder to kill somebody with a knife than with a gun, and it's certainly harder to kill somebody accidentally with a knife than a gun.
"The British Police don't carry guns. This makes them the most dedicated police in the world. There are no shortcuts.
If they want to unlawfully kill someone they need to beat them to death, and that takes a lot of effort."
(I do not necessarily endorse this view, but find the deflation of expections amusing. Most cops I've met are decent people, but the British force has had a load of cock-ups, corruption and unlawful shootings of late.)
No, but I am pointing out that it is not the holy grail that most Westerners think that it is, and 'seemingly free' media rarely is truly free.
I elaborate on some of my misgivings in the following comment:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/361643
Edit:
And in that comment, I was just referring to the culture of so-called free media, but what is really 'commercial media'. I didn't even touch on the even more questionable issue of interest-group sponsored media.
My country could benefit from an empire immensely, no more corrupt fools to care of, no more bad tries in economy, I know that other countries won't benefit from this, but some others will. Sometimes you need to care about the country and not about some citizens, I am sure that no one will like it, but some moments you need effectiveness, not happiness. Right now my country is lacking BOTH, so... It will help a lot if someone that knows what he does takes place as an emperor. Look, evangelization isn't an advancement for a government, it's for the religion, most governments that are religious try to expand their religion, I didn't talk about military expansion also... I was talking about economical and political advancements, maybe even technological and cultural, but not expand the territory.
This is a pointless debate, so I don't think I'll continue it.
The idea of limiting the amount in circulation by criminalizing the item is something I find to be a bit misguided (though well-meaning). Many things can be misused and lead to horrible consequences. People who drive inebriated often cause injury and death, yet alcohol is not banned. Driving intoxicated is.
There are often cases where criminalizing an item leads to horrible unintended consequences. For example, drug policy in the States is very similar to the plan to combat gun violence that you proposed. I have never used a single drug in my life, and would much prefer of others did not, but when you look at the results of the "War on Drugs" you find that the negative consequences far outweigh any possible benefits. Drug market altercations are actually the biggest contributor to violent crime statistics in the States. When someone attempts to purchase a drug (obviously misguided, but not intending to harm anyone other than themselves) they are forced to deal with a criminal element that is willing to defend its drug trade with violence. Much like alcohol prohibition led to massive increases in organized criminal activity in the US in the 1920s, the prohibition of drugs have contributed to the formation of the Cartels and most notably for Americans, gang culture in urban locations.
And with all this violence, what have been the positives? There has been no change in drug addiction in the 40 years since the War on Drugs began in the 70s, while drug use is actually more common.
If the underground trade in drugs causes this level of violence with so little benefit, imagine what the black market in objects that are designed for making violence convenient may bring. I think the cause of reducing violence and addiction is very noble, but the results of these kind of policies, no matter what is benign criminalized, may not be what the well-meaning people who design them expect.
It is actually quite similar to the result of Chinese censorship that Heindrich mentioned in the post he linked to about people not trusting the source (though the cause of this would be very different)
[spoiler] You may think your country would benefit, until the corrupt fools get more power with less accountability and have unrestrained control over the economy. What you described as a problem here would most likely be exasperated in a less limited and less democratic system. Also the Roman Empire that you are referencing had problems far greater than any Argentina face today, and this should not be overlooked. For one, is "effectiveness" a goal or a means to achieve "happiness"? Most people accept a government's authority because it is a promise to keep them safe. If the government is causing people to be unhappy and decreasing the quality of their lives, then it is the problem, not the solution, and will quickly lose its legitimacy in the eyes of the population.
The idea of getting "someone who knows what they are doing" as an emperor is very scary.
A. no one is capable of planning for an entire society all by themselves without limitations since they simply don't understand the desires of the citizens as well as the citizens do themselves.
B. Who is to say who is a person who "knows what they are doing"? You? Me? I wouldn't trust myself in a position with such absolute power, why would I trust anyone else?
C. Even if we were to magically find a perfect leader, how would he deal with opposition during his rise to power? Is violence worth it
also it is easy to say that the well-being of some should be sacrificed for the "country"... unless you become the "some". Civilizations are made of many small groups of likeminded people of various sizes. Favoring one or the other is not very just imho. Even then, in a totalitarian system technological, economical "developments" would all involve some level of violence.
[/spoiler]
Finally... these issues are not resolved on video game forums, but that does not mean discussions are pointless!
Gun restriction over a prolonged period does directly reduce deaths, injuries and accidents associated with firearms. My perspective may be skewed due to living in the UK where guns are a complete rarity, but our gun-related death rate is 1/40th that of the US, 1/6th that of New Zealand, 1/4 that of Australia. I list these countries as NZ and Australia are arguably cultrally closer to the UK than the US. Gun laws have been strict in the UK for decades - getting hold of a shotgun (that has a maximum capacity of 3 rounds) requires a full police background check as well as comfirmation from your doctor and a respected member of your community that you're safe, stable and responsible. Handguns are outright illegal and rifles are very heavily restricted. As a country the UK is pretty messed up politically, but gun deaths are so rare that shootings by the police usually make the national papers.
*Edit* I think they're two very different issues, and the way that morality and freedom are waved around in both arguments is more a rhetorical tool than anything else. Going with what works is all you can do, and people often seem to ignore facts.
I can't really see how freedom and morality can *not* be part of this discussion. The differences between arresting someone for doing something that hurts another human being and arresting someone for owning an object are vast, and definitely part of the discussion.
I agree with you that background checks and ensuring that gun owners have no history of mental health problems is very reasonable. I think that bans are a different story.
Also, the UK and the US are not the same situation. It's important to note that unlike in the UK guns are already very common here in the US (just as drugs were when the War on Drugs was beginning). The leval at which some people assume that gun restrictions would reduce the overall number of firearms in the States is a bit fanciful, particularly in a country that shares one of the world's largest borders with another nation that has an absolutely astounding level of gun violence.
Also important is the size of the United States coupled with the fact that statistics show that gun violence is significantly more common in urban areas. The United States has one of the highest urban population ratios in the world. In fact, levels of gun ownership in the most rural areas of the States is far higher than in the urban areas, yet levels of gun violence are significantly lower (though the gun restrictions in urban states is in may cases a response to the increase in gun violence).
Finally looking at guns as the only contributing factor to gun-related deaths is very limiting. In the United States we have one of the most expansive drug war programs in the world, and the number one incident of gun-related death is gang violence and the drug trade. That is a significant difference between the United States and the UK that heavily contributes to the statistics you cited.
As you say though @booinyoureyes, there are significant cultural differences. In the US there is a commonly-held cultural ideal of pioneers or rugged individualists which doesn't really translate in the UK. Many US role models, folk heroes and historical figures of the past 200 years have been soldiers, lawmen, frontiersman or similar, and so have an association with firearms. Even today military service is a major campaign booster in presidential elections. There is also a strong tradition of hunting which doesn't really exist in the UK - only the very upper-class have hunted here for centuries. Guns have only been in the hands of the aristocracy, some farmers or the military for a long time.
It may well be that these cultural differences allowed the UK government to pass more restrictive gun laws years ago, while a number of issues around assault weapons in the US have been allowed to lapse due to lack of public support. I don't mean to paint the UK as a model of enlightenment by any means, but we do comparatively well in terms of gun crime. We still have our share of controversial police shootings (Jean Charles de Menezes, Mark Duggan) but overall numbers are low.
But there are many factors why Guns will never be band in America
1. Tradition. We have always had guns. They helped us not have to pay taxes (I mean) “gain our freedom” from England. In pioneer times they were essential tool for survival. Our grandparents owned guns, there grandparents, and so on. The idea that what was ok back then is not ok now is hard for people to understand.
2. Guns make you feel safe. This doesn't mean they make your home safer. Statistics show that you are more likely to shot a love one than an actual intruder but some people feel safer with a gun in the house. It gives them power they normally would not have.
3. And most importantly Money. There is a lot of money being made in the production and sale of guns. If it became illegal for the majority of the population to own guns there would be a lot of people out of business. If people were not making so much money off gun sales America would have stricter gun laws and this wouldn't be an issue.
Most don't talk (or don't know) about the economic factor but I feel it is a big reason why we have not changed or enforced many gun laws. You'll notice that anything that will put a dent in big business pocket books is slow to change. Just look at our health care policies.
((note: I went to a gun range once and shot a few rounds. It was fun and I may do it again some day.))