Why are people scared of the police?

[Kugan]

Reading The Daily WTF (of yesterday) (http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Youll-Need-to-Come-Downtown.aspx) was quite surprising – especially the comments. It appears as if most Americans have a great fear of the police.

For those who don’t want to read everything: It was basically a story about the police taking a guy and his child “downtown”. Afterwards a LOT of people commented on how stupid the guy was to actually talk to the police, saying things like: “If the police asks to search me, I ask if they have a search warrant.”

Now I have a slight fear of the police. Whenever I see a cop I do think of everything I’m doing wrong (oh no, I jaywalked… ). However, a policeman asked to search my bag a few days ago. Strangely enough I didn’t think about asking for search warrants, or asking for a female officer instead, or that I would be convicted of some horrible crime. All I thought was: “Oh crap… I haven’t cleaned my bag in ages. What is he going to think of me?”

So… are you scared of the police? If you are, why?

[jschild]

Generally its learned from the parents.

Sometimes it is first hand experience.

One thing that can be funny is how you respond to them. I'm ALWAYS nice to the police, polite, yes sir, yes maam. Never had a bit of trouble. Even if I was having trouble I wouldn't be talking back (might be moemorizing that badge number however). Thats just asking for trouble.

Had a friend though, co-worker. Always talking about how cops harrass him because he is black. At our company picnic, he drives up, playing some music about as loud as possible (and considering the wattage in his trunk, it was very loud). Cop pulls him over in front of the picnic to tell him to turn it down. He starts ranting at the cop and then the cop gives him a citation for disturbing the peace (IE, violating the noise ordanance).

He then rants about how cops hate black people. I kept my mouth shut but I wanted to say - you twit, its your own damn fault!.

Sometimes its legitimate, cops shoot a guy for no reason. People fear the cops and what they do.

Sometimes its stupid, kid runs from the cops in a stolen car, backs over 2 of them, then jumps out and gets shot. People still fear the cops and scream at them.

Unfort, nothing you say or do will convince those that cause the problems for themselves, or think cops shouldn't shoot at someone who lead them through a high speed chase through public areas, ran over two cops, and jumps out running from it might have brought it upon themselves.

Also varies area to area. Cops here in Louisville mostly behave themselves. Never been videotaped at least beating anyone senseless.

[Twoflower]

in my case it is a long tradition of law breaking :) even now that i dont smoke pot any more and i obey the traffic regulations most of the time, i am still worried every time i see a police car. then i ask myself why ^^

[Kugan]

One thing that can be funny is how you respond to them. I'm ALWAYS nice to the police, polite, yes sir, yes maam. Never had a bit of trouble. Even if I was having trouble I wouldn't be talking back (might be moemorizing that badge number however). Thats just asking for trouble.
...

He then rants about how cops hate black people. I kept my mouth shut but I wanted to say - you twit, its your own damn fault!.

Haha. Good story! My father always taught me that there are two groups of people you are polite to no matter what: Police Officers and Border Officials. These people can make your life hell if they want to, so it’s much better not to give them a reason to.

in my case it is a long tradition of law breaking :) even now that i dont smoke pot any more and i obey the traffic regulations most of the time, i am still worried every time i see a police car. then i ask myself why ^^

Now that is a good excuse. And it is the main reason I thought of as well… you have no reason to be really scared unless you are hiding something. :grin:

[Shellar]

Cops have to take crap from people day after day. They get insulted, spit on, shot at - and then there are criminals to deal with. Police have to face the scum of the society, they get no respect, and, as far as jobs where people regularly try to kill you, the pay is terrible. The good parts of being a cop are that you can wear a uniform, carry a gun, beat the snot out of people, and generally be an Authority Figure.

Now, since this terrible job is voluntary, this means that most cops are the either the kind of people for whom the good parts of the job outweigh the bad (control freaks, bullies and borderline sadists), or they're from cop families for whom there was only one career choice. The first kind start off bad and get worse. The second kind have usually been shielded from the realities of the machine by their parents. By the time they're disillusioned, they're no better than the power maggots.

Granted, there are exceptions to these sad rules, but it's not the exceptions that one should worry about, but what one will probably face. Rest assured that an average policeman has not passed up careers in high finance or network administration to walk a beat. The closet poets or detectives who do the crossword in ink exist only on TV.

As if that wasn't enough, honest cops are even more rare than nice ones. If there's one thing that bullies and disillusioned idealists have in common, it's the understanding that there will never be an end to crime. Right on the heels of that realization comes the acceptance that, if you can't hope to stamp out evil, you might as well charge it rent.

All of this means that, when facing a police officer, fearful deference is one of the safest and sanest reactions one can have. To choose a stance of equality (or, worse yet, superiority) is to risk harassment and violence.

[Elly]

I'm not. I get a quick pang of guilt if I see a copper here (UK) although I've not done anything wrong.

When I saw my first US cop I was a bit unnerved because they had guns, even more so than seeing them in the middle or far east but that's probably down to TV.

In general I don't give them a second glance now, unless they're chubby and then I make every effort to look away as quickly as possible in case they see the "how can you be chubby and a cop, is that even allowed?" look on my face.

[Pig]

Do you guys remember the "Don't tase me bro" guy? :shocked:

Most of the "police state" stories I read remind me of that story. He's a strange bird, and hijacks the mike at a John Kerry speech; he gets increasingly agitated, he's asked to leave by the sponsors, he refuses and when the police intervene, he actually pushes one of them. (At any earlier point, it probably would have simply been a removal from the premisis or a minor detention.) Then he resists being detained/arrested for an extended period of time. Finally, after they warn him they'll use taser, and he still doesn't submit, they tase him. What's the headline? "Cops taser man for ASKING A DAMN QUESTION". This is followed by 31 comments about how, in the US, we now live in a fascist police state.

The guy needed tasing. Hell, after watching the video, I wanted to tase his ass.

I"m not trying to solicit a bunch of opinions on this particular incident; there are dozens of other examples. I saw a video tape recently of a woman who stopped at a the scene of a car crash, and helped translate for the police. She then did some very odd stuff, entering and leaving the scene, apparently interviewing involved people on her own, interfereing significantly, and disregarding everything the police said. She ends up being arrested, and the internet headline reads "Good Samaritan Arrested for Helping the Police". I saw another video (this one in London) of a very minor use of force on a drunk woman, it was repeatedly described as a "beating" and so emotionally disturbing that it "rattled me to the core of my being" or some such.

Come on. Give me a break. Behave in a manner that is at least moderately reasonable, and the police treat people politely. Act like a wierdo, and you are giving them ever-increasing reasonable suspicion/probable cause to search you, your stuff, your car, and detain you. The moment you decide that an encounter with the police is a great time to begin exercising some civil rights you learned about on a television show, you may be asking for some additional attention. :wave:

[xDarkDrifterx]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/473532/dave_chappelle_stand_up_scared_of_the_police/

Sooo funny . . . lol

__________

In all seriousness it's because of the random police brutality. Give a jacked up muscle bound hot head a gun and a bit of power . . . then never really let him use either one (except a bit a power on occasion) . . . and things will happen.

http://www.hrw.org/about/initiatives/police.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality

For me, as long as I'm not buzzed I'm always okay with them, but give me a slight buzz and I'm all kinds of paranoid with cops lol.

[jschild]

Do you guys remember the "Don't tase me bro" guy? :shocked:

Most of the "police state" stories I read remind me of that story. He's a strange bird, and hijacks the mike at a John Kerry speech; he gets increasingly agitated, he's asked to leave by the sponsors, he refuses and when the police intervene, he actually pushes one of them. (At any earlier point, it probably would have simply been a removal from the premisis or a minor detention.) Then he resists being detained/arrested for an extended period of time. Finally, after they warn him they'll use taser, and he still doesn't submit, they tase him. What's the headline? "Cops taser man for ASKING A DAMN QUESTION". This is followed by 31 comments about how, in the US, we now live in a fascist police state.

The guy needed tasing. Hell, after watching the video, I wanted to tase his ass.

I"m not trying to solicit a bunch of opinions on this particular incident; there are dozens of other examples. I saw a video tape recently of a woman who stopped at a the scene of a car crash, and helped translate for the police. She then did some very odd stuff, entering and leaving the scene, apparently interviewing involved people on her own, interfereing significantly, and disregarding everything the police said. She ends up being arrested, and the internet headline reads "Good Samaritan Arrested for Helping the Police". I saw another video (this one in London) of a very minor use of force on a drunk woman, it was repeatedly described as a "beating" and so emotionally disturbing that it "rattled me to the core of my being" or some such.

Come on. Give me a break. Behave in a manner that is at least moderately reasonable, and the police treat people politely. Act like a wierdo, and you are giving them ever-increasing reasonable suspicion/probable cause to search you, your stuff, your car, and detain you. The moment you decide that an encounter with the police is a great time to begin exercising some civil rights you learned about on a television show, you may be asking for some additional attention. :wave:

Do be awre of the alternative. A cop arrested a firefighter who was rendering aid at a crash site. Why? He didn't park where the cop wanted him to, and insisted on helping the injured victim instead of moving. Also seen the video of the insane cop (from Philly i think) screaming and then pretty much physically assulting a 14yo. Good guys and bad guys are both out there. It's just making sure people don't punish the good ones doing there job and ignore the bad ones.

[elsegundo]

cops write tickets. i hate tickets.

[rgirty]

Because if you are talking to a cop, something is wrong.

Either your in trouble, or someone else is in trouble.

Or it is an emergency.

Cops are great, and they save lives. They do lots of good work. But if you are talking to one, something is wrong.

Thats why people "dislike" cops. It isn't so much the cop, but the situation.

[Valas Azuviir]

Now that is a good excuse. And it is the main reason I thought of as well… you have no reason to be really scared unless you are hiding something. :grin:

Well.. There's hiding and then there's hiding.

One could be.. Gee, I hope he doesn't find the body in the trunk.
The other might be. Oh crud, it's her dad. :grin:

[epochfox]

Police in my area are corrupt but it is getting better, the sheriff got arrested on drug charges. Former police here have admitted they have a monthly qouta on tickets. When a friend of mine went infront of the judge and agrued his case and the judge said everyone in (my city) is guilty. He eventually was cleared of everything.

[everytimeidie]

Rgirty has it spot on.

Cops, like dentists, doctors, hospitals, etc., aren't liked because they typically represent something's wrong, will be wrong, or has already been wronged.

I think the media-machine plays a key role in that as well.

No one wants to get into trouble (mostly) so naturally, when I see a cop, my ace puckers a little bit...but as most of you have said, you think, "I'm not doing anything wrong, why am I worried?"

The answer? Because we all do something illegal. :D

[mesonm]

It appears as if most Americans have a great fear of the police.

Your premise is unsupported...come back when it is...IMO.

[Kugan]

Your premise is unsupported...come back when it is...IMO.

Oops. I must have forgotten to put the word “appears” in there.

Oh no… I didn’t. I came here to find out if it is true, and if it is… why? :D And so far most of the Americans have given a reason for being scared of the police, while most of the British have replied that they are not.



Rgirty, I think you do have a good point, and it does explain my slight fear of the police (which I have always wondered about). But most of the comments were in the line of:

Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>?
Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest?
Cop: No.
Me: Have a nice day.

When people asked why, or posted that they thought these people were being paranoid, they were accused of trolling.

Edit: I think I used the wrong word. It’s seems more like “distrust” than “fear”

[everytimeidie]

If the police here only carried billy-clubs, I wouldn't be that worried about them either. :)

[Exavion]

Reading The Daily WTF (of yesterday) (http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Youll-Need-to-Come-Downtown.aspx) was quite surprising – especially the comments. It appears as if most Americans have a great fear of the police.

For those who don’t want to read everything: It was basically a story about the police taking a guy and his child “downtown”. Afterwards a LOT of people commented on how stupid the guy was to actually talk to the police, saying things like: “If the police asks to search me, I ask if they have a search warrant.”

Now I have a slight fear of the police. Whenever I see a cop I do think of everything I’m doing wrong (oh no, I jaywalked… ). However, a policeman asked to search my bag a few days ago. Strangely enough I didn’t think about asking for search warrants, or asking for a female officer instead, or that I would be convicted of some horrible crime. All I thought was: “Oh crap… I haven’t cleaned my bag in ages. What is he going to think of me?”

So… are you scared of the police? If you are, why?

First, I'd like to say that I find it funny that you believe you're doing something "wrong" just because it's against the law.

Secondly, people are afraid of police, because there are a very large number of laws that can get you penalties, fines, or even incarceration, without any victim.

The perfect example is the "war on drugs".

Or not wearing your seatbelt. Or drinking/smoking underage (it's a family matter, not a state/federal government matter.)

A police officer has no right to search your personal belongings. That's your right to privacy. Something I suppose we only used to have.

Oh and one more thing, cops represent authority. The very idea that someone has "control" over you, is demeaning and degrading. Cops act superior to us, at least the ones I've interacted with.

[Valas Azuviir]

A police officer has no right to search your personal belongings. That's your right to privacy. Something I suppose we only used to have.


That would be called probable cause.. If, you're covered in blood, yet have no physical wounds.. Well.. Gee.. Might be wise to search the car, just in case you got a body stuffed in there. :tongue:

[thorleader]

cops write tickets. i hate tickets.

elegant.
I hate traffic cops WAY more. Expecialy the guy in my town who rides a segway. He has to pay his own salary, so rest assured he tickets if you stay 1 second after your 60 min zone is up.
"dude I'm pullling out"
"should have done that one minute ago, young man"
(riot ensews (sp?))
"DON'T TASE ME BRO"

[jschild]

First, I'd like to say that I find it funny that you believe you're doing something "wrong" just because it's against the law.

Secondly, people are afraid of police, because there are a very large number of laws that can get you penalties, fines, or even incarceration, without any victim.

The perfect example is the "war on drugs".

Or not wearing your seatbelt. Or drinking/smoking underage (it's a family matter, not a state/federal government matter.)

A police officer has no right to search your personal belongings. That's your right to privacy. Something I suppose we only used to have.

Oh and one more thing, cops represent authority. The very idea that someone has "control" over you, is demeaning and degrading. Cops act superior to us, at least the ones I've interacted with.

Of course, this totally assumes individual actions do not have repercussions we do not intend.

I do not believe people should not be arrested or jailed for possession of a small, personal amount of a drug.

That being said, people who abuse, get wasted, drunk, etc, often injure or kill themselves or others. A good friend of mine while I was in high school died because of a stupid drunk who drove headlong into her car on the wrong lane of the highway. About two years ago, a young woman drove her car headlong into a car, killing the two elderly people inside. She served two months of her service. She choose to accept the chance she might kill someone, and paid for it with 2 months in jail. These are people who should never be allowed to drive again, but get their hands slapped.

That doesn't even begin to take into account how much money we end up paying for their mistakes, the literally billions upon billions that they cannot pay so we do to cover their expenses when that smoker decides they don't want to quit because its their "right" then slowly waste away for 5 years with cancer, unable to pay the bills so that my insurance company has to charge more and more to cover it. Same goes with seatbelts..when you don't wear one and get in an accident, guess who pays - insurance premiums go up because they can't afford the reconstructive surgery.

Or gangs who traffic drugs, hand it out to kids to get them addicted, murder people in the street for money, all for a "victim-less crime".

Sorry you think you should have the freedom to do whatever you want, but most "victim-less" crimes are not, in any way victim-less. There are often better ways to deal with issues than the way we do, but to claim that they do no harm is just as unreasonable.

[Exavion]

Of course, this totally assumes individual actions do not have repercussions we do not intend.

Of course they do.

I do not believe people should not be arrested or jailed for possession of a small, personal amount of a drug.

Good.

But selling it shouldn't be illegal either.

That being said, people who abuse, get wasted, drunk, etc, often injure or kill themselves or others. A good friend of mine while I was in high school died because of a stupid drunk who drove headlong into her car on the wrong lane of the highway. About two years ago, a young woman drove her car headlong into a car, killing the two elderly people inside. She served two months of her service. She choose to accept the chance she might kill someone, and paid for it with 2 months in jail. These are people who should never be allowed to drive again, but get their hands slapped.

So, driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. So driving while under the influence of drugs should be too, but not actually just taking/selling them!


That doesn't even begin to take into account how much money we end up paying for their mistakes, the literally billions upon billions that they cannot pay so we do to cover their expenses when that smoker decides they don't want to quit because its their "right" then slowly waste away for 5 years with cancer, unable to pay the bills so that my insurance company has to charge more and more to cover it. Same goes with seatbelts..when you don't wear one and get in an accident, guess who pays - insurance premiums go up because they can't afford the reconstructive surgery.

So, I guess having freedom isn't worth maybe paying a few extra bucks a month for health insurance? Give me a break. When you'd give up a single right because of a monetary cost, you really don't understand the value of freedom.

Or gangs who traffic drugs, hand it out to kids to get them addicted, murder people in the street for money, all for a "victim-less crime".

Drugs are on the black market because they are illegal. There is so much crime and violence around them because they are the largest profit source for any criminal organization because they are illegal. It makes no sense at all for them to be illegal.

Sorry you think you should have the freedom to do whatever you want, but most "victim-less" crimes are not, in any way victim-less. There are often better ways to deal with issues than the way we do, but to claim that they do no harm is just as unreasonable.

Getting arrested for drinking/gambling underage is a victimless crime. Getting arrested for using or selling drugs is a victimless crime. Getting arrested for carrying a knife/gun for personal protection is a victimless crime. (Oh I suppose you support gun control too don't you?)

[jschild]

So selling an addictive substance that can totally ruin lives should be legal. Meth should be legal, crack should be legal? I think vvery few people would agree with you on that. There is enough problems in this nation, the last thing we should do is make it easier to get hard drugs.

But, what you call freedom is not freedom. Your actions affect others. If you want to go into a room and blow your brains out, ok. But who will pay for the cleanup, the funeral? You are forcing your actions on others, that is my point. You want to be able to do anything, damn the conseqquences. Many smokers think they have the right to make me breathe their smoke. Why do they have the freedom to do so, but I cannot have the freedom to breathe fresh air unless I leave. My freedom affects no ones health, while the smokers does.

Selling drugs, and getting another person hooked on them, up to, and leading to their death means a drug dealer is not innocent. He participated in hooking another person onto drugs. He is partially responsible.

What I think is funny is that you apparently feel that drinking and driving is bad. Why shouldn't they have freedom to do that. Why have speed limits, i should have the freedom to drive as fast as I want, right?

And i support gun checks and controls. I don't want them outlawed. But you do know, most criminals obtain their guns by stealing them from others. There is no purpose for fully automatic weapons however and I do support the ban of those weapons.

A cop that arrests a kid drinking while underage might easily prevent them from driving later on that night. The cop arresting a drug dealer that is selling to kids might prevent a kid from being a life time user.

You are making things much more simple than they are, without thinking about any of the repercussions that they would bring. Would you like to see even more addicts?

[Valas Azuviir]

Getting arrested for drinking/gambling underage is a victimless crime.


How do you think the funds are generated to support the habit?


Getting arrested for using or selling drugs is a victimless crime.


How do you think the funds are generated to buy the drugs?
And as for the sale.. There's the small matter of ripping to contend with, how they deal with competition etc etc. In the end, that too will lead to victims. It's a set of dominoes which will tumble one after another.


Getting arrested for carrying a knife/gun for personal protection is a victimless crime. (Oh I suppose you support gun control too don't you?)

Having a gun for personal protection won't get you arrested, if you have a permit (talking from a US pov, European laws tend to be different on that issue). Knives aren't protected under the Constitution (again from a US pov), but anyway it's easier to shiv someone with a knife, then it's to shoot them.

Seems to me, that you're overlooking one important aspect in your we should have more freedoms argument. Other people and their inability to handle such freedoms responsibly. A society with no rules is nothing but anarchy, and that will soon lead to the establishment of a set of far worse "rules", namely that the strong survive and will prey on the weak.

Thanks but no thanks, that's not a society worth living in.

[Exavion]

So selling an addictive substance that can totally ruin lives should be legal. Meth should be legal, crack should be legal? I think vvery few people would agree with you on that. There is enough problems in this nation, the last thing we should do is make it easier to get hard drugs.

Oh God, you actually think it's hard now to get drugs? That's really as close to hilarious as you can get.

The black market is very, very open and accessible. It's not hard to go buy drugs now, in any city.

Oh and by the way, haven't you heard of cigarettes? They kill what, over 450,000 people every year, are very harmful and addicting, yet they are perfectly legal. Why? Money. Simple. It's not about ****ing morality, the law never was, unless "religion" comes into play by those who don't understand the meaning of separating church from state.

But, what you call freedom is not freedom. Your actions affect others. If you want to go into a room and blow your brains out, ok. But who will pay for the cleanup, the funeral? You are forcing your actions on others, that is my point. You want to be able to do anything, damn the conseqquences. Many smokers think they have the right to make me breathe their smoke. Why do they have the freedom to do so, but I cannot have the freedom to breathe fresh air unless I leave. My freedom affects no ones health, while the smokers does.

Oh, I think committing suiciding is bad in a sense, not morally so though. The people who pay for it? Usually the family members. That's a shame, it definitely does affect others, but thats a family issue and not a governmental issue. There's a huge difference that people can't seem to see...

Selling drugs, and getting another person hooked on them, up to, and leading to their death means a drug dealer is not innocent. He participated in hooking another person onto drugs. He is partially responsible.

So then cigarette companies are all murderers by that logic. They are partially responsible, but not to the point of being held accountable for the decision of someone else.

If someone buys drugs, without being tricked in some way, and uses them, then becomes addicted, it's his own fault. Plain and simple. Should it be illegal? No. Should the family or friends of the member try to get him off of it? Sure. It's, like I said, a family and friends matter, not something that will be fixed by locking people up for using substances that only have the potential to harm themselves.

What I think is funny is that you apparently feel that drinking and driving is bad. Why shouldn't they have freedom to do that. Why have speed limits, i should have the freedom to drive as fast as I want, right?

If you drink and drive, you become impaired, and thus your ability to react in the case of something unexpected occurring is severely impaired. Hence, many more accidents occur while under the influence of some sort of drug. I mean, there are some laws I consider sane and logical, because so many people participate in the act of driving, for instance, that an etiquette for it makes sense if you don't want to have that many accidents. It's not the same as using a drug , though. Just using the drug itself affects no one but yourself. Only using it and THEN driving should be illegal. It's simple.

And i support gun checks and controls. I don't want them outlawed. But you do know, most criminals obtain their guns by stealing them from others. There is no purpose for fully automatic weapons however and I do support the ban of those weapons.

Of course, they steal them, or buy them from the black market, or bribe someone with a clean record to get it for them. There are so many ways to get around the system, it makes no sense to have it. You can never truly "ban" guns, look at the UK. They totally outlawed guns, yet there's still plenty of gun crime. All it does is take away guns from the people who'd only use them for self-defense.

Why should I have to hand over my right to a tool, because a few morons think it makes us safer? Everyone wants to justify a law in the secure word of "safety" because they know it's a play on emotions, when it really does nothing.

A cop that arrests a kid drinking while underage might easily prevent them from driving later on that night. The cop arresting a drug dealer that is selling to kids might prevent a kid from being a life time user.

Oh, so we should be arresting people because the cop just THINKS they could do something bad later on? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty...

You are making things much more simple than they are, without thinking about any of the repercussions that they would bring. Would you like to see even more addicts?

No, simple is clear. Complicated matters often are only complicated due to deliberate confusions, people do this to try and pass a point without people really understanding the fundamentals. I try to do the opposite.

So here, you think that drugs being against the law decreases drug usage. That's false. If it was legal, first we could tax it, more revenue for the leach government, yuppie. Second, it could be more regulated, so thus it would be much safer.

Third, private sectors could make large sums of money helping people get off of these drugs. As far as I am aware, rehabilitation centers are mainly only dealt by the government, and often compulsory.

Lastly, that's one more lovely freedom that we've taken back. I guess, I may be considered a fanatic libertarian, but then I'd much rather live in chaos, free, than in servitude, safe. :wink:

How do you think the funds are generated to support the habit?

What do you mean exactly? The funds... you mean, how the teens procure the money to pay for it? Well, they work? That's how you earn money see... or they get it from their parents for doing chores or whatnot.



How do you think the funds are generated to buy the drugs?
And as for the sale.. There's the small matter of ripping to contend with, how they deal with competition etc etc. In the end, that too will lead to victims. It's a set of dominoes which will tumble one after another.

I see, so you think everyone who buys drugs or whatnot got the funds illegitimately?

And violence only occurs in the drug realm BECAUSE it is illegal. The black market is accessible, but not very safe...



Having a gun for personal protection won't get you arrested, if you have a permit (talking from a US pov, European laws tend to be different on that issue). Knives aren't protected under the Constitution (again from a US pov), but anyway it's easier to shiv someone with a knife, then it's to shoot them.

Yes, I don't support the whole idea of having to have a permit to own a gun. That means it's a privilege, not a right. I don't support this at all.

And up close, you're right it is easier to use a knife, but I believe it's illegal to carry one. Though not covered by the constitution, on a stand-alone issue, why make them illegal? Again, it does nothing to stop those who'd used them for evil things from using them.

Seems to me, that you're overlooking one important aspect in your we should have more freedoms argument. Other people and their inability to handle such freedoms responsibly. A society with no rules is nothing but anarchy, and that will soon lead to the establishment of a set of far worse "rules", namely that the strong survive and will prey on the weak.

I never said no rules, just far, far less. And not at the federal level, but at the state level, so if one state seems unfair to someone, they have many more to chose from. That's choice, and freedom.

[mesonm]

Oh God, you actually think it's hard now to get drugs? That's really as close to hilarious as you can get.


Did you even READ what he said?....He didn't say it isn't easy...He said "don't make it even easier...".

This whole thread is mostly nonsense.

Arguing that small amounts of addictive drugs should be legal is fine...Free speech FTW.

Expecting it to happen is crazy. I'll do my best to vote out of office any legislator that proposes it.

[Herald of Doom]

Somehow I get the feeling you're not very experienced with drugs, or guns for that matter. Plus, guns or drugs don't become any safer when they are regalated...

HoD

[Valas Azuviir]

What do you mean exactly? The funds... you mean, how the teens procure the money to pay for it? Well, they work? That's how you earn money see... or they get it from their parents for doing chores or whatnot.


*Shakes head*
You are overlooking the addiction aspect.

If the families in question figure out that there's a problem, then they will cut off the funds. That however does not remove the addiction itself, just the funds to support the addiction. Meaning that said person is far more likely to turn to illegal activities in order to support their habit.

Gambling?? Try stealing from the workplace or from their family. It's far more common than you might want to believe.

Drinking?? Well, that tends to resolve itself, when they step into a car and wrap themselves around a telephone pole or something, ignoring the fact that they can also kill others with their reckless behaviour.


I see, so you think everyone who buys drugs or whatnot got the funds illegitimately?


Once their regular funds run out, than that is the likeliest course of action yes. Folks addicted to hard drugs tend not be able to function in a normal working environment, least not indefinitely anyway. And with the physical need to use more of the drug in question, in order to trigger the high, then more money will be needed in order to achieve this.

Money that cannot be generated by way of the ordinary work day. Hence, them turning to illegal activities and that in turn does impact others.



And violence only occurs in the drug realm BECAUSE it is illegal. The black market is accessible, but not very safe...


Irrelevant. You're making a chicken and egg and which came first argument.
I'm pointing out that your claim that selling drugs is a victimless crime is an incorrect assessment on your part.

Now, if you want to argue that it could become victimless, once it was no longer illegal, that's a completely different ballgame. However, this still does not address the side effect of the impact of addiction on society.



Yes, I don't support the whole idea of having to have a permit to own a gun. That means it's a privilege, not a right. I don't support this at all.


Tough.. It's the law, you don't like it, then try to have it changed. You can't? Then you're still going to have to obey it.

And then there's the small matter that a lot of folks, simply are not responsible enough to handle firearms properly. Handing everyone a gun, because it's their right.. Well.. Take a look see at say Somalia or Iraq as to what the consequences are of too many guns floating around and the subsequent breakdown of a civilized society into one where might makes right.


And up close, you're right it is easier to use a knife, but I believe it's illegal to carry one. Though not covered by the constitution, on a stand-alone issue, why make them illegal? Again, it does nothing to stop those who'd used them for evil things from using them.


It's not about stopping everyone, it's about minimizing the occurrences to the smallest possible degree. Absolute safety is an illusion, all you can do is minimize the danger.

Currently, folks have had too much to drink.. Get into an argument. They fight each other using their hands or maybe bottles. Still a chance of fatalities, but it's within an acceptable risk margin. Now, if everyone has a knife. Chances of fatalities go up.

And especially in a world where X-rage is on the increase, whether it be road rage or mobile phone rage etc etc etc. Then having everyone running around with weaponry is just not a sensible thing to do.



I never said no rules, just far, far less. And not at the federal level, but at the state level, so if one state seems unfair to someone, they have many more to chose from. That's choice, and freedom.

That's a common flaw with this type of reasoning. Not every country is organized as a federation, so that means that opposed to doing things at state level, they'd become province level or city level etc etc etc.

Add to this that you really can't expect people to uproot their entire lives and the lives of their families over something like a law that they disagree with.

Now you might be comfortable with doing that, but most other folks won't be.

Libertarianism doesn't work. The US in the 19th century pretty much showed that. The strong preyed on the weak, whether by force of arms or by monetary means. Whether it be the gangs of outlaws, or the robber barons, in the end the innocent and the powerless were made to suffer.

To you this might be acceptable, to me it isn't.

Oh by the way, no back to back posts. It's in the forum rules (http://www.worldofwar.net/forums/rules).

And before you say that you don't like them...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/IS_Wolf/Stuff/therules.jpg

[Exavion]

Did you even READ what he said?....He didn't say it isn't easy...He said "don't make it even easier...".

This whole thread is mostly nonsense.

Arguing that small amounts of addictive drugs should be legal is fine...Free speech FTW.

Expecting it to happen is crazy. I'll do my best to vote out of office any legislator that proposes it.

You can't really make it any easier, and even if you could, it would hardly change anything.

And yeah, I'm sure you will. You'll win, too, because I believe George Carlin said it to the best, the public sucks.

*Shakes head*
You are overlooking the addiction aspect.

If the families in question figure out that there's a problem, then they will cut off the funds. That however does not remove the addiction itself, just the funds to support the addiction. Meaning that said person is far more likely to turn to illegal activities in order to support their habit.

Gambling?? Try stealing from the workplace or from their family. It's far more common than you might want to believe.

It doesn't truly matter how common it is though, that's what you don't seem to understand. I recognize the consequences, I merely see them as negative side-effect of freedom, more than a fair price to have it. I guess, I've never really been the one to support laws that take away types of freedom, that totally deny one the right to use or do something specific, in the hopes that it will reduce some sort of crime. Come on... it's just not a very strong reason to me. I don't like crime, but I love freedom much more than I dislike crime. Just me though..

Drinking?? Well, that tends to resolve itself, when they step into a car and wrap themselves around a telephone pole or something, ignoring the fact that they can also kill others with their reckless behaviour.



Once their regular funds run out, than that is the likeliest course of action yes. Folks addicted to hard drugs tend not be able to function in a normal working environment, least not indefinitely anyway. And with the physical need to use more of the drug in question, in order to trigger the high, then more money will be needed in order to achieve this.

There are two types of drugs that are currently legal. Both are mentally and physically addicting. You can't argue against any other type of drug by saying they are addicting, as that's a double standard because there are drugs, perfectly legal, that are just as addicting.

Money that cannot be generated by way of the ordinary work day. Hence, them turning to illegal activities and that in turn does impact others.

That doesn't happen in every case though. You really have little faith in humanity...




Irrelevant. You're making a chicken and egg and which came first argument.
I'm pointing out that your claim that selling drugs is a victimless crime is an incorrect assessment on your part.


Okay, it is MOST of the time a victimless crime. Yes, sometimes it has a "victim" in the sense that someone else will be mildly hurt or inconvenienced. Very hardly justifies making them illegal though.

Now, if you want to argue that it could become victimless, once it was no longer illegal, that's a completely different ballgame. However, this still does not address the side effect of the impact of addiction on society.

Like I said earlier, there are already drugs that are addicting, yet perfectly legal. I think people are managing absolutely fine though.




Tough.. It's the law, you don't like it, then try to have it changed. You can't? Then you're still going to have to obey it.

Nope, I won't obey it, I just won't get caught. I really pity any fool who obeys a law that has no sound and logical sense. That's cowardice.

And then there's the small matter that a lot of folks, simply are not responsible enough to handle firearms properly. Handing everyone a gun, because it's their right.. Well.. Take a look see at say Somalia or Iraq as to what the consequences are of too many guns floating around and the subsequent breakdown of a civilized society into one where might makes right.

Lol, Iraq isn't in disarray because of guns, oh my god... did you actually try to make that argument? It's in disarray because of RELIGION, point and match.

Sure, there are irresponsible people, but the amount of responsible people far outweighs them. I mean, you're justifying a law here, based on the assumption that there are a lot of irresponsible people, correct?

But you think you're responsible, correct? So if guns were legal, or if they are where you live, would you buy one, or do you own one now? My bet is no. I may be wrong, but I personally believe most people against guns are so because they feel the guns themselves are in some way evil, and the mere act of owning one makes that said person bad.



It's not about stopping everyone, it's about minimizing the occurrences to the smallest possible degree. Absolute safety is an illusion, all you can do is minimize the danger.

But, see... minimizing danger is great, but not at the cost of freedom. I guess, that's one thing that most people seem to disagree with me on. :sad:

Currently, folks have had too much to drink.. Get into an argument. They fight each other using their hands or maybe bottles. Still a chance of fatalities, but it's within an acceptable risk margin. Now, if everyone has a knife. Chances of fatalities go up.\

So? It's their life. The mistake here, is the assumption that the government owns your life, and is somehow allowed to pass laws designed to protect you from yourself...

And especially in a world where X-rage is on the increase, whether it be road rage or mobile phone rage etc etc etc. Then having everyone running around with weaponry is just not a sensible thing to do.

If everyone had weaponry, then rampages couldn't happen. Someone started, and they'd be dead before they killed two people, because the citizens, the people at risk, would actually have the means to DEFEND themselves against the attacker, instead of waiting, powerless, for the police.




That's a common flaw with this type of reasoning. Not every country is organized as a federation, so that means that opposed to doing things at state level, they'd become province level or city level etc etc etc.

Well, my belief is, the smaller the level, the better. The bigger any government gets, the less freedom the people have.

Add to this that you really can't expect people to uproot their entire lives and the lives of their families over something like a law that they disagree with.

Nope, I can't. Which is exactly why the country is doomed. Apathy.

Now you might be comfortable with doing that, but most other folks won't be.

Libertarianism doesn't work. The US in the 19th century pretty much showed that. The strong preyed on the weak, whether by force of arms or by monetary means. Whether it be the gangs of outlaws, or the robber barons, in the end the innocent and the powerless were made to suffer.

There are no powerless in a free society, because anyone can own a gun. A gun is a leveling field, be you old, a women, or just a weak man, whatever... if you have a gun, or a knife, or some form of weapon, your odds of survival against any attacker greatly increase. It's quite simple.

To you this might be acceptable, to me it isn't.

Oh by the way, no back to back posts. It's in the forum rules (http://www.worldofwar.net/forums/rules).

And before you say that you don't like them...

No fine, whatever. That rules is to prevent spam though, no one reason to have it. I'm hardly spamming. :wink:

[Valas Azuviir]

It doesn't truly matter how common it is though, that's what you don't seem to understand. I recognize the consequences, I merely see them as negative side-effect of freedom, more than a fair price to have it. I guess, I've never really been the one to support laws that take away types of freedom, that totally deny one the right to use or do something specific, in the hopes that it will reduce some sort of crime. Come on... it's just not a very strong reason to me. I don't like crime, but I love freedom much more than I dislike crime. Just me though..


Yup, just you.

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens". Just another person who loved freedom more than he disliked crime.

There is a fine balance required for a society to properly flourish. Whereas freedom is one aspect, limitations are another. People cannot handle absolute freedom, history has shown that time and time again.



There are two types of drugs that are currently legal. Both are mentally and physically addicting. You can't argue against any other type of drug by saying they are addicting, as that's a double standard because there are drugs, perfectly legal, that are just as addicting.


Irrelevant again, considering I never made that argument in the first place.



That doesn't happen in every case though. You really have little faith in humanity...


And you have too much faith. Me?? I'll get nice surprises when humanity does something noteworthy and benign. You?? You'll end up with disappointment after disappointment as they fail to live up to your standards.



Okay, it is MOST of the time a victimless crime. Yes, sometimes it has a "victim" in the sense that someone else will be mildly hurt or inconvenienced. Very hardly justifies making them illegal though.


That's your opinion.. Others disagree. And to reference a Star Trek quote, the needs and the wishes of the many outweigh the needs and wishes of the few or the one.

And yup, sometimes the reverse is true as well, that's the whole balance act I mentioned before. But in this case, in order to minimize the possible damage to the most amount of people, then limitations are perfectly warranted.


Like I said earlier, there are already drugs that are addicting, yet perfectly legal. I think people are managing absolutely fine though.


Again, that's your opinion. I'm fairly certain that a number of folks in AA would disagree with your sentiment.



Nope, I won't obey it, I just won't get caught. I really pity any fool who obeys a law that has no sound and logical sense. That's cowardice.


It's practicality actually. Because the concept that you won't get caught. Well.. Most criminals think that, and only a handful are correct in their assessment. Pride dost come before the fall, as the old saying goes.


Lol, Iraq isn't in disarray because of guns, oh my god... did you actually try to make that argument? It's in disarray because of RELIGION, point and match.


Religion is one aspect true, but how can the religious nutjobs enforce their will upon others?? By way of force, and what better way to project force than through weaponry.

So, if you want to claim that the sheer abundance of weaponry available in Iraq has no bearing/effect on the situation there, then I've got a bridge to sell you in NY city.



Sure, there are irresponsible people, but the amount of responsible people far outweighs them. I mean, you're justifying a law here, based on the assumption that there are a lot of irresponsible people, correct?


Takes only a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. The official WoW boards are a good example. They represent only a fraction of the WoW player base, but it's just about one of the biggest cesspools since the days of Sodom and Gamorrah.

While there are rules of conduct, they're not properly enforced, least not on a scale necessary for said boards to properly serve its function as a way of valid communication between players amongst themselves and/or with the Devs.

And thus you get the nerf whine threads, and that subsequently effects the responsible WoW players as their class suddenly takes a hit in efficiency.

So your stance that rules are bad, because it's only a small group who make trouble, doesn't work.



But you think you're responsible, correct? So if guns were legal, or if they are where you live, would you buy one, or do you own one now? My bet is no. I may be wrong, but I personally believe most people against guns are so because they feel the guns themselves are in some way evil, and the mere act of owning one makes that said person bad.


A gun is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. It's the person who wields the tool who determines if it's lethal or not. Only problem is, most tools are multi-purpose. I could use a hammer to smash someone skull in, or I could use it to hammer some nails into a wall.

All a gun is designed for is shooting/killing things. And considering where I live, I have no reason to shoot/kill things. It's not as if I hunt, or need it to kill vermin on my property. So, there's no reason for me to own a gun.

Personal protection? I have ways to ensure that anyway, ergo I have no need of a gun.



But, see... minimizing danger is great, but not at the cost of freedom. I guess, that's one thing that most people seem to disagree with me on. :sad:


*Bites back a snarky response*



So? It's their life. The mistake here, is the assumption that the government owns your life, and is somehow allowed to pass laws designed to protect you from yourself...


Again, you're not looking at all the angles. There's the medical aspect, situations like this would tie up the intensive care units of hospitals, meaning that others will not be able to receive treatment in a timely fashion, and could end up dying because of it.

Then there's the risk of escalation. Fights tend to be chaotic, the chances of an innocent bystander getting nailed by mistake cannot be ignored.


If everyone had weaponry, then rampages couldn't happen. Someone started, and they'd be dead before they killed two people, because the citizens, the people at risk, would actually have the means to DEFEND themselves against the attacker, instead of waiting, powerless, for the police.


You're ignoring the friendly fire aspect, especially when dealing with a firefight involving untrained civilians. Toss in ricochets and just bad shooting because of the adrenaline rush and it's not inconceivable that the end tally between the two situations will be close enough that it won't make a damned difference either way.


Well, my belief is, the smaller the level, the better. The bigger any government gets, the less freedom the people have.


Just no feasible in this day and age, considering how complex and interlinked everything has become.



There are no powerless in a free society, because anyone can own a gun. A gun is a leveling field, be you old, a women, or just a weak man, whatever... if you have a gun, or a knife, or some form of weapon, your odds of survival against any attacker greatly increase. It's quite simple.


Like I said, the 19th century in the US has already proven that your stance doesn't work. Ok, so you have a gun.. That gang has six, simple numbers game, you might get some, but in the end you're dead anyway.

And that's working under the presumption that they don't ambush you to begin with.

And said level playing field will also have its consequences, when you consider all the irresponsible folks. Whether it be accidental shootings, friendly fire, domestic disputes which escalate into use of deadly force etc etc.

It just doesn't work.


No fine, whatever. That rules is to prevent spam though, no one reason to have it. I'm hardly spamming. :wink:

Looks like you missed this aspect.


2. Thou Shalt Not Spam or Engage in Posting Wars.

When replying to multiple posts within the same thread we ask that you use a single post to do so. Use the Insert text here command in your reply to quote the person's name and comment you are replying too.


Constantly having to merge your posts is irksome.
And I've got no problems with whacking you with a tempban, to make you see that ignoring a moderator request to abide with the forum rules, isn't exactly the most prudent thing to do in this world.

[Glurin]

Having a gun for personal protection won't get you arrested, if you have a permit (talking from a US pov, European laws tend to be different on that issue). Knives aren't protected under the Constitution (again from a US pov), but anyway it's easier to shiv someone with a knife, then it's to shoot them.

Just wanted to clear up something here. Knives are protected under the US constitution. "right to keep and bear arms" not "right to keep and bear guns". The subject gets a lot less attention though. Way less than it should get.

All a gun is designed for is shooting/killing things.

All a hammer is designed for is hitting/smashing things.

Sure, I could use a gun to kill someone, or I could use it to catch some food, or signal other people.

Personal protection? I have ways to ensure that anyway, ergo I have no need of a gun.

Good for you. Get one anyway. Learn about it. Make it a new hobby. Enjoy it. Take the kids target shooting and teach them about it. With any luck, you'll never need to use it and all it will ever be for you is a fun hobby.

Just because you don't "need" something doesn't mean you can't have it. Then at least its there if you ever do need it.

But hey, its still a mostly free country. You still don't want one, thats fine. Just don't go thinking that gives you the right to take them away from everyone else.

Like I said, the 19th century in the US has already proven that your stance doesn't work. Ok, so you have a gun.. That gang has six, simple numbers game, you might get some, but in the end you're dead anyway.

And without the guns, you get none and your still dead. Guns do even up the odds, but numbers are numbers no matter what weapon your talking about. Well, except nukes I guess...

And that's working under the presumption that they don't ambush you to begin with.

They don't have to ambush you if they know your unarmed. :wink:

You're ignoring the friendly fire aspect, especially when dealing with a firefight involving untrained civilians. Toss in ricochets and just bad shooting because of the adrenaline rush and it's not inconceivable that the end tally between the two situations will be close enough that it won't make a damned difference either way.

And your ignoring the fact that its a weapon. Granted, if everyone carried a weapon, you'd get the very thing your talking about here, which is a good argument for not mandating everyone carry a gun. But what I mean by ignoring the fact that a gun is a weapon is a simple question of attitude.

People who willingly carry a weapon of any kind generally have a different attitude toward it and its use than people who do not. Many even have different attitudes depending on the type of weapon. That attitude tends to make them a lot less likely to simply panic and start blasting away at everything. The result is that they shoot the guy on a rampage and thats the end of it.

Now, you take someone who doesn't carry a weapon and have them pick one up in a crisis situation, well, they are probably already in a state of panic. In this situation, I'd be more afraid of the clean cut business man who's never held a gun in his life than the grungy looking biker with a shotgun who just stopped in for a bite to eat.


Religion is one aspect true, but how can the religious nutjobs enforce their will upon others?? By way of force, and what better way to project force than through weaponry.

How about through torture? How about through making people "disappear"? How about through pointing out the heretics and inciting a mob against them? Those are just off the top of my head and all three of them are much more effective in enforcing your will on others than flashing some kind of weapon around. All that does is keep people at bay until they work up the courage to challenge you.

So, if you want to claim that the sheer abundance of weaponry available in Iraq has no bearing/effect on the situation there, then I've got a bridge to sell you in NY city.

Oh it has some bearing. Just not as much as you seem to think.


Gonna switch to Exavion here:

But you think you're responsible, correct? So if guns were legal, or if they are where you live, would you buy one, or do you own one now? My bet is no. I may be wrong, but I personally believe most people against guns are so because they feel the guns themselves are in some way evil, and the mere act of owning one makes that said person bad.


Or their paranoid. I was in a second amendment debate once where the guy revealed he was so scared of people who had even a pocket knife he'd leave a party if he saw someone that had one. I don't think Valas fits this category though.


Wow, didn't really intend on my post being this long, but this is one issue I have some strong opinions on. :P

[Exavion]

Yup, just you.

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens". Just another person who loved freedom more than he disliked crime.

There is a fine balance required for a society to properly flourish. Whereas freedom is one aspect, limitations are another. People cannot handle absolute freedom, history has shown that time and time again.

I'm not an advocate for Anarchy. I wouldn't truly be "against it" so to speak, though I also much prefer a more libertarian-isk society. Some limitations and rules make sense, but on the smaller the level, the more localized, the better. When you get up to the federal level, well that's where things really get nasty if you ask me.




Irrelevant again, considering I never made that argument in the first place.

"Folks addicted to hard drugs tend not be able to function in a normal working environment, least not indefinitely anyway. And with the physical need to use more of the drug in question, in order to trigger the high, then more money will be needed in order to achieve this."

You make the claim that addiction leads to crime...




And you have too much faith. Me?? I'll get nice surprises when humanity does something noteworthy and benign. You?? You'll end up with disappointment after disappointment as they fail to live up to your standards.

The thing that's funny though, is you seem to classify the government as a different entity, separate from the human species. No. It's run by human beings, and while I do have a fair bit of faith in humanity, the more power one has, the less faith I have. What is the one thing those in government have a lot of? Power. If you ask me, it would be very difficult to even find one totally pure politician in this day and age. The only possible candidate I can think of is Ron Paul, but heck I can't really even be sure of him either.




That's your opinion.. Others disagree. And to reference a Star Trek quote, the needs and the wishes of the many outweigh the needs and wishes of the few or the one.

So, 51% of the people think this is right, so screw the other 49% eh? :wink:

Nope, never really been a fan of democracy honestly. It doesn't make that much sense. Not when they can affect everyone. State-wide power, and less federal power... now that makes sense. :grin:

And yup, sometimes the reverse is true as well, that's the whole balance act I mentioned before. But in this case, in order to minimize the possible damage to the most amount of people, then limitations are perfectly warranted.

Like I said, some limitations make sense. Such as traffic laws, that don't really deny you outright anything, just from doing very stupid stuff, not actually stopping you from doing the main act though, which is driving. It's the difference between a law preventing you from using any drugs at all, and a law preventing you from using them and then driving/doing something else that requires a lot of focus or attention in order to refrain from hurting others.



Again, that's your opinion. I'm fairly certain that a number of folks in AA would disagree with your sentiment.

The majority can cope with it. And, those in AA are there by their own doing. I'm not going to be rude, but truthful. If you're addicted to something, it's your own fault. I hope you get better, but I don't support a law designed to protect people from themselves. I never will.




It's practicality actually. Because the concept that you won't get caught. Well.. Most criminals think that, and only a handful are correct in their assessment. Pride dost come before the fall, as the old saying goes.

I'd rather die free than live a slave. :azn:



Religion is one aspect true, but how can the religious nutjobs enforce their will upon others?? By way of force, and what better way to project force than through weaponry.

So, if you want to claim that the sheer abundance of weaponry available in Iraq has no bearing/effect on the situation there, then I've got a bridge to sell you in NY city.

Hardly.

The enforce it through, fear, lies, deceit and, sometimes, violence. The guns represent fear, true. Rarely are they needed though, because what holds the people back is the religion they were brainwashed with, and the fear they are being tormented with. A dictator knows how to play on someone. He'll torture you, and kill your family/friends/kids in front of you, or do anything else that not only affects you but others. So even personally brave people back down because, no one wants to do that to their loved ones... that's just one example though.






Takes only a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. The official WoW boards are a good example. They represent only a fraction of the WoW player base, but it's just about one of the biggest cesspools since the days of Sodom and Gamorrah.

While there are rules of conduct, they're not properly enforced, least not on a scale necessary for said boards to properly serve its function as a way of valid communication between players amongst themselves and/or with the Devs.

Eh? I use the WoW forums a lot, sure there's some trolls and spam, just like every other forum. The thing is, it's an extremely active forum, with many visitors, so there really aren't that many in a ratio basis... you just see more because there are overall so many more people. It doesn't bother me.

And thus you get the nerf whine threads, and that subsequently effects the responsible WoW players as their class suddenly takes a hit in efficiency.

So your stance that rules are bad, because it's only a small group who make trouble, doesn't work.

Blizzard is a company. They'll do whatever fits their business model best. They don't just listen to the forums for decisions. They know not everyone goes there.




A gun is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. It's the person who wields the tool who determines if it's lethal or not. Only problem is, most tools are multi-purpose. I could use a hammer to smash someone skull in, or I could use it to hammer some nails into a wall.

All a gun is designed for is shooting/killing things. And considering where I live, I have no reason to shoot/kill things. It's not as if I hunt, or need it to kill vermin on my property. So, there's no reason for me to own a gun.

Personal protection? I have ways to ensure that anyway, ergo I have no need of a gun.

Well, in a fair fight, one on one, you probably do have a chance at survival. If the other guy is armed though, well your odds drop immensely. What are your "ways" if you don't mind me asking?







Again, you're not looking at all the angles. There's the medical aspect, situations like this would tie up the intensive care units of hospitals, meaning that others will not be able to receive treatment in a timely fashion, and could end up dying because of it.

There are plenty of accidents that occur. Just because it may take up a few more beds at the hospital doesn't justify a gun ban though, because a few people may abuse it under the influence of alcohol or rage.

Then there's the risk of escalation. Fights tend to be chaotic, the chances of an innocent bystander getting nailed by mistake cannot be ignored.

Risk versus reward. In this case, the risk is actually minimal. The reward? Freedom. Oh, sweet lovely freedom ye be mine! :thumbsup:



You're ignoring the friendly fire aspect, especially when dealing with a firefight involving untrained civilians. Toss in ricochets and just bad shooting because of the adrenaline rush and it's not inconceivable that the end tally between the two situations will be close enough that it won't make a damned difference either way.

Hey accidents happen all the time. The honest truth though, is that I'd take a bullet if it meant that other people could carry the tool that could one day save their life or that of their loved ones. Seems like a mighty small price to pay to me.


Just no feasible in this day and age, considering how complex and interlinked everything has become.

Exactly. It's deliberately made complex like that to confuse and undermine the average joe... you'd think people would catch on, it's funny actually though. It may not change, but at least I can try to draw some humor from the ridiculous things people accept.




Like I said, the 19th century in the US has already proven that your stance doesn't work. Ok, so you have a gun.. That gang has six, simple numbers game, you might get some, but in the end you're dead anyway.

If you have a gun, and that gang knows it, they won't bother you. What, do you think criminals are immune to fear? Just because they outnumber you doesn't mean anything. You're armed, that means if they come after you, one of them may die. Even though they outnumber you, there's still a great deterrent at work, even in a case like that. So can you imagine how a lone wolf criminal would feel, knowing that most citizens were armed? Honestly, crime would drop like a freaking tonne.

And that's working under the presumption that they don't ambush you to begin with.

That's what the knife is for...


And said level playing field will also have its consequences, when you consider all the irresponsible folks. Whether it be accidental shootings, friendly fire, domestic disputes which escalate into use of deadly force etc etc.

It just doesn't work.

None of that is strong enough to justify what you want though. And even if you still believe in gun control, the end result is amazingly poor. Look at the UK, and then laugh... really, it's hilarious. I wonder what they must be thinking over there...

Gun control simply doesn't work. You can't get the guns away from the criminals, the only way to EVER do that, would be to somehow erase the knowledge on how to make them from EVERY human on earth, and then take every gun and melt them or something. That's the only way you'll get them out of the hands of criminals. Obviously, this won't happen.

So, gun control is pointless. It's that simple. :cool:



Looks like you missed this aspect.



Constantly having to merge your posts is irksome.
And I've got no problems with whacking you with a tempban, to make you see that ignoring a moderator request to abide with the forum rules, isn't exactly the most prudent thing to do in this world.

Heh, whatever. It doesn't really matter, does it? If my posts aren't together, so what... what harm does that do?

[surodat]

Opinions abound about Drugs/Guns/Police.

To those who think illegal drugs should be illegal:

The pro arguments that drugs are addictive, cause violence and destroy lives are anecdotal and narrow-focused. Addiction is a trait in humans that can be expressed in a variety of ways: from Wow to gambling to sex to drugs to alcohol to cigarettes to heroin to weed. Each one of these addictions can be as dangerous to a society in different ways.

Banning certain chemicals because they are addictive forces those who become addicted to maintain a lifestyle that allows them to obtain the drugs. Certain people lose the ability to function when addicted to substances/behavior, others do not. Drug addiction is recognized as a medical illness, and banning the drugs criminalizes the illness.
Proposing that buying should not be illegal to protect the user while continuing to criminalize the seller does not remove the criminal link between each user and the "life of crime" thus perpetuating the idea of the drug user as criminal, or associating with criminals.

There are problems with making drugs legal: influx of "drug tourists" from countries where they remain legal, drug trafficking out of the country, which invite both criminal and non-criminal elements. But, there is not the problem of "everyone becoming addicted."

Just like alcohol, there are those who are more and less predisposed to the addiction of certain substances. Some people don't like the effects of morphine, some do. Some people don't like the effects of weed, some do.

The argument that [ Legal==>Wider Availability==>More People Addicted ] depends on the argument that people are helpless when exposed to the drug and must be protected from themselves. This does not account for the individual choice and predisposition to addiction based on physiological and psychological factors. Those not physiologically attracted to drug use will continue to not use drugs. Those not psychologically attracted to drug use will continue not to use drugs. Those who DO fall under the high risk cases of being predisposed to psychological addiction will FIND ANOTHER WAY. Either through illegal purchases or other self-destructive behavior.

This brings us back to the first point of Treating rather than Criminalizing. Some argue the point that methadone clinic dropout rates are high and that treatment doesn't work for the case of heroin addiction. Well, most countries have not actually tried to treat addicts without continuing to label them criminals. We actually won't know if treatment is effective on a mass scale until we consider EVERY ASPECT of drug addiction legal and a medical problem to be overcome with dignity and respect that we give to every other law-abiding citizen.

But what we do know, is that the status quo is not effective. Drugs ARE available and for every gram of weed/heroin/coke that is seized be police officers hundreds of kilos are distributed on the streets. Imagining that drugs will become MORE readily available because you can buy them legally is seriously underestimating the problem that already faces most countries today.

As for firearms, I think that all firearms should be banned outside of the police and military. I think that the United States has a draconian law that predates Police officers and a National Guard. Seriously, the Police and National/State Guard is essentially the "well regulated militia" that the constitution of the united states calls for.

And finally, Police officers: Officers of the Peace have one of the hardest jobs in the world. People who mean harm do not always declare themselves and patrolling the streets is a dangerous things. I have had bad experiences, and good experiences with police, but their job is not to enforce to law. Their job is to keep the peace. It is a judge's job to enforce the law. Co-operate, be respectful, if you disagree, do so politely and don't argue to points of law with them. If you think you are in the right, you can take it to a judge.

Wow.
/end proselytizing

edit: Just skimming back and read this:
"Those in AA are there by their own doing."

Yes they are. They are people who have taken the step to consciously rise above a physiological dependency. Being an alcoholic is not a matter of smart or stupid or choices, it's a roll of the dice. To think otherwise is like thinking that people with anorexia nervosa have an overdeveloped sense of vanity. Don't insult people with your ignorance. Please.

[Clavina]

When I was on holiday in New York I needed directions. So I approached an officer and said 'Excuse me could you tell me the way to some-place-i-can't-recall?'. He turned around and screamed 'Get the f**k out of my face or I will shoot you.' I was shocked to say the least, he did eventually talk to me in a civil manner but his first outburst was ridiculous.

Personally I do get nervous around police but that's from a mispent youth and all my own doing. ;) Just last month over the easter holidays I was driving my mom, aunt and sister home from the pub in the small hours of the morning. There was a Garda (irish police) checkpoint breathalysing drivers in the road. Even though I hadn't had anything to drink, I had nothing on me that I shouldn't, I have a licence, the car was insured and taxed.... I still stalled the car in front of them, lowered the wrong window, acted like I had a dead body in the boot and tried to drive off without the engine running from being nervous. The garda just found the situation hilarious I guess there isn't much to laugh at in the cold at that time of the morning :)

Any time I have had 'first hand' experiences with the long arm of the law I was dealt with quite well. The vast majority police I've encountered have just been normal people doing a job as best they can. Much like the rest of us..

[Katrala]

I've never been in trouble with the police other than a few speeding tickets, yet I still harbor a distrust. It certainly wasn't from my parents - they have the utmost respect for police officers.

Perhaps I have an elitist, unfair view. Police officers don't require a college education and I find that many of them lack basic common sense. There are good cops - ones who are there for the right reasons, but it also seems that the police academy takes "just anyone" and tries to train them up.

[Exavion]

As for firearms, I think that all firearms should be banned outside of the police and military. I think that the United States has a draconian law that predates Police officers and a National Guard. Seriously, the Police and National/State Guard is essentially the "well regulated militia" that the constitution of the united states calls for.

Banning them does nothing. Criminals still get them. Why take em away from the citizens?

And finally, Police officers: Officers of the Peace have one of the hardest jobs in the world. People who mean harm do not always declare themselves and patrolling the streets is a dangerous things. I have had bad experiences, and good experiences with police, but their job is not to enforce to law. Their job is to keep the peace. It is a judge's job to enforce the law. Co-operate, be respectful, if you disagree, do so politely and don't argue to points of law with them. If you think you are in the right, you can take it to a judge.

The hardest job? So driving around all day, occasionally having to beat someone up and arrest them for smoking weed, and eating doughnuts, is hard? Since when is that difficult? I hate police officers, because they have taken up a mandate, supporting the law. I can never ever get along with someone who supports the law as it is now. Yes, there are a few ones that make sense, but the vast majority are totally without logic.

Wow.
/end proselytizing

edit: Just skimming back and read this:
"Those in AA are there by their own doing."

Yes they are. They are people who have taken the step to consciously rise above a physiological dependency. Being an alcoholic is not a matter of smart or stupid or choices, it's a roll of the dice. To think otherwise is like thinking that people with anorexia nervosa have an overdeveloped sense of vanity. Don't insult people with your ignorance. Please.

Yes, it is a matter of a smart or stupid choice.

THEY chose to actually start to drink, just like someone choses to do drugs. It's the same thing. It's their fault. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help them, but it was their choice, plain and simple.

[Herald of Doom]

Please, name some laws that are so illogical. I'm not familiar with US or Canadian laws, but in all my (Belgian) Law classes I haven't found one illogical law (concerning crime obviously, we're not talking marital law or something like that :smiley: ). It's not because you disagree with something that it automatically becomes illogical.

Also:

Exavion, grey.
Grey, Exavion.

[Exavion]

Please, name some laws that are so illogical. I'm not familiar with US or Canadian laws, but in all my (Belgian) Law classes I haven't found one illogical law (concerning crime obviously, we're not talking marital law or something like that :smiley: ). It's not because you disagree with something that it automatically becomes illogica

I've already mentioned quite a few.

I'll list those that are most prominent for me.

The first are the drug laws of course. I don't believe people should be sent to jail because of using or selling them.

Gun control laws. The UK has outright banned them. Has had no affect to stop it, in fact it has increased crime overall. Talk about freaking ridiculous.

Minority laws, such as stopping minors from gambling/drinking, or compulsory attendance at school. I believe these to be family matters, not governmental issues. Oh yes, also sex laws aggravate me. The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to tell someone whether or not they can have sex. Again, it's a FAMILY matter or at best a community matter.

Abortion laws. Though a lot of states no longer are against this legally (hurray for freedom prevailing!) some still are.

Seatbelt laws. You're not going to try and protect me or anyone else from themselves, I'm sorry. And I know the whole medical infrastucture of governmental insurance is tied up into that, but that's just a different issue, public health care is stupid, and takes away more of your rights because you no longer pay for your own stuff directly. The government does. And while that's your money by any stretch, the government acts as if it's their money even though they stole it from the people.

Income tax filing being mandatory. People can be fined or even jailed if they don't file this form, and pay whatever they "owe" (yeah right) the government.

And those are off the top of my head, usually the laws/issues I tend to debate most. :grin:



Also:

Exavion, grey.
Grey, Exavion.

Sorry, what do you mean by that? Is there someone here titled Grey with similar views as me?

[Glurin]

The first are the drug laws of course. I don't believe people should be sent to jail because of using or selling them.

Maybe. The goal of drug laws is to combat drug abuse, not the drugs themselves. Maybe banning them is the right thing to do, maybe it isn't. Actually, I just thought of something. We could take a lesson from gun laws on this one. Banning them clearly doesn't work like some people think it does, so increase the penalties for the actual crime.

Just as an example, kill someone in a car accident, get six months. Do it while high on something, add an extra year. Again, I'm just pulling numbers out of a hat here to illustrate the point.

Gun control laws. The UK has outright banned them. Has had no affect to stop it, in fact it has increased crime overall. Talk about freaking ridiculous.


I agree. Put any thought into it beyond "Ban x = less y" and strict gun control doesn't make much sense. Makes perfect sense if what your after is a dictatorship or something similar though, which is what a lot of pro-gun control people want anyway.


Minority laws, such as stopping minors from gambling/drinking, or compulsory attendance at school.

Those laws are generally in place to keep minors from being even more stupid than they already are. Some of them could use a little toning back though.


Abortion laws. Though a lot of states no longer are against this legally (hurray for freedom prevailing!) some still are.

Partial birth abortion should absolutely be banned. Its no different from leaving the baby in a dumpster. So as far as that goes, it makes perfect logical sense.

Seatbelt laws. You're not going to try and protect me or anyone else from themselves, I'm sorry.


Well, seatbelt laws do make logical sense, but not moral sense.

Income tax filing being mandatory. People can be fined or even jailed if they don't file this form, and pay whatever they "owe" (yeah right) the government.

Meeehhh... The whole system needs some reworking, but taxes are how the government gets funding. I can't say this law is really illogical.

[elsegundo]

I've already mentioned quite a few.

I'll list those that are most prominent for me.

The first are the drug laws of course. I don't believe people should be sent to jail because of using or selling them.

Gun control laws. The UK has outright banned them. Has had no affect to stop it, in fact it has increased crime overall. Talk about freaking ridiculous.

Minority laws, such as stopping minors from gambling/drinking, or compulsory attendance at school. I believe these to be family matters, not governmental issues. Oh yes, also sex laws aggravate me. The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to tell someone whether or not they can have sex. Again, it's a FAMILY matter or at best a community matter.

Abortion laws. Though a lot of states no longer are against this legally (hurray for freedom prevailing!) some still are.

Seatbelt laws. You're not going to try and protect me or anyone else from themselves, I'm sorry. And I know the whole medical infrastucture of governmental insurance is tied up into that, but that's just a different issue, public health care is stupid, and takes away more of your rights because you no longer pay for your own stuff directly. The government does. And while that's your money by any stretch, the government acts as if it's their money even though they stole it from the people.

Income tax filing being mandatory. People can be fined or even jailed if they don't file this form, and pay whatever they "owe" (yeah right) the government.

And those are off the top of my head, usually the laws/issues I tend to debate most. :grin:





Sorry, what do you mean by that? Is there someone here titled Grey with similar views as me?
im sorry Exavion... all i read was "i dont like these laws because [insert insulting remark here]."
or you stated an opinion only. there is nothing to back up why you think so.

let me be clear. you DID site examples of the laws you think are illogical. but you have yet to explain why they are so. please do.

[mesonm]

Is there a goal here? Or just random argument not designed to accomplish anything?

[Turonx]

On the actual topic...no i've never been afraid with the police and yes I have been arrested,abused,etc. I'm not afraid and it's not because i think i'm the **** no it's because I know the crap they go through and if ruffing me up a bit helps them go home and to be a great dad/mom is it worth it. I'm not saying all cops are like that most of them are polite and very nice(even though i'm the one in trouble).

To "some" who think drugs OF ANY kind legal/illegal are good you soooooooo damn wrong to the highest degree, drugs only lead to corruption. I've grown up around drugs my WHOLE life and to say drugs should be legal is unbelivable at best. Also to say that a person is stupid and deserves what they get for getting addicted is surely inhuman....as a society no as a race we should help anyone that needs it. Every person has a chance of getting addicted to certain drugs and to sit by and do nothing while babies go unfed cause there mom is in the bathroom shooting upor a man get in a car after 7 shots of whiskey or your friends brother is in his crapy apartment smoking weed doing nothing just smoking till he feels numb is is (no wors to describe). Drugs have no postive affect on life none, and if you tell me ppl need it to eat THATS BULL**** we could easily make a pill (thats not addicting to help that cause)for that exact reason, all drugs do is ruin lives.

To guns every person has the right to bear arms but not every person is responsible enough to carry the burden of shooting a person dead. I believe no person has the right to kill another under any circumstance, but not everyone is going to believe in that so i guess my belief is in vain. People have the right protect there property,family,their ownself, but that doesn't mean we should if we just have heavier penalties for felonies I do think crime will decrease and I mean severe penalties.

Now you might say hey this guy's a kid he doesn't know anything but i've lived around these topics my whole life, i've exp them 1st hand and to tell me otherwise is disrespectful

Is there a goal here? Or just random argument not designed to accomplish anything?

There was a topic but it grew into a agrument with no positive outcome, it's actually making me really....irritated.

[Glurin]

To guns every person has the right to bear arms but not every person is responsible enough to carry the burden of shooting a person dead. I believe no person has the right to kill another under any circumstance, but not everyone is going to believe in that so i guess my belief is in vain. People have the right protect there property,family,their ownself, but that doesn't mean we should if we just have heavier penalties for felonies I do think crime will decrease and I mean severe penalties.


"You're robbing me? Oh man, are you going to be sorry you did that. What? Now you're raping my daughter! You are in so much trouble mister. Oh, now you're stabbing me to death. Man, you're really going to pay for this later."

Yeah, I don't think thats going to work out so well. Better to just shoot the bastard and let the police and my lawyer sort it out later.

[surodat]

Exavion, I understand the anarchistic libertarian viewpoint, and some anarchists can make compelling arguments. You, unfortunately can't seem to form a coherent one. While knee-jerk rejectionism laced with caricatures and generalities makes for good comedy, it is not indicative of an understanding of how the world works.

You profess from the pulpit the importance of the free individual and you decry the failings of regulation, organized government and law. You despair the very humanism you profess when it comes wrapped in a governmental seal. You live in one of the most liberal cities on the continent. I've stood on the street in Montreal talking to a cop while smoking a joint. An essential freedom? Hardly.

As for laws that don't make sense: well, yes with a lack of understanding of history, and an ignorance of the development of you own legal system and government: some laws don't make sense. However, once you take the time to learn something, those laws are either misguided, archaic or (gasp) essential.

And please, please, please go to an AA meeting. It's anonymous, you don't have to say anything. Just go. Listen to the stories of the people there. Life is not always about choices.

Also, Turonx, while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The American Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't think you'll find in this the intention for every individual to be their own militia. If you're going to make a case for personal Firearms you have to find it in the ninth amendment. And to do that you have to believe that carrying a gun is a right granted through natural law. Which I do not.

Although we are capable of turning any object into a tool for killing, guns have no other purpose. To claim that natural law gives us the right to posses tools made exclusively for killing is to claim that natural law gives us the right to kill.

[Glurin]

Thats a pretty common error, believing that the second amendment only applies to the militia. First of all, it says "right of the People" not "right of the militia". That right there should tell you this is an individual right. The founders didn't just pick words at random after all. Second, speaking of the founders, all you have to do is read up on what they said on this topic and the founding of the country in general to understand what is meant by it. To say they only intended a militia to have the power displays a serious lack in understanding of the principles and philosophy that the U.S. was founded on.

Also, IMO carrying a gun in particular is not a natural law. Carrying a weapon is, and yes it is also a natural law to kill if need be.

[DaWokk]

Let me say something about the gun ownership argument. Now, I am 13 years old and I am educated in the NRA.

It's not true that guns kill people, it's the intentions of the crooks that do, and now, there's absolutely no stopping it. From what someone said, guns are outlawed in England, but there's still plenty of gun crime. I live in the U.S. and it's our right to be armed, but IN MY OPINION it's not the ownership that causes crime, it's the responsibility and self-control that does. I'm saying that people get their guns stolen or they give into bribes, which is their own fault, which leads to intentional shootings driven by selfish desires(killing for money, bribing someone) and the poor responsibility and knowledge of ther person. However, there are enough citizens who are responsible to keep their weapons secure to compete with those who don't. It's not guns that kill people, intentions do. I say intentional shootings kill more than carelessness.

Now, here's a story I heard from my NRA instructor:

There was a town here in Nevada(forgot the name) that had gun problems, shootings, drive-by's, gang wars. So the local government thought outlawing guns would stop them. It didn't, AND THE GUN CRIME WENT EVEN HIGHER. Why? Because somehow, in some possible or impossible way, the crooks are gonna get the guns, black market, stealing, you name it. The good citizens following the laws would have nothing to defend themselves with, and the victims would be dead by the time the police, who probably have their guns banned to, arrive.

I'm saying by this story that if the crooks are killing people with the guns, and then they were injured/killed by the self defense of another person with a gun, more lives could be saved because that bad citizen was either
injured powerless then taken to jail, or dead, and therefore there would be one less killing machine, saving more lives in the future.

If anyone on this argument or reading this plans to get a firearm, I suggest finding an organization such at the NRA(Nation Rifle Association) and taking a class. I would say more lives would be saved if more people were more knowledgeable about firearms.

One man can mean the death of ten.

[Turonx]

Exavion, I understand the anarchistic libertarian viewpoint, and some anarchists can make compelling arguments. You, unfortunately can't seem to form a coherent one. While knee-jerk rejectionism laced with caricatures and generalities makes for good comedy, it is not indicative of an understanding of how the world works.

You profess from the pulpit the importance of the free individual and you decry the failings of regulation, organized government and law. You despair the very humanism you profess when it comes wrapped in a governmental seal. You live in one of the most liberal cities on the continent. I've stood on the street in Montreal talking to a cop while smoking a joint. An essential freedom? Hardly.

As for laws that don't make sense: well, yes with a lack of understanding of history, and an ignorance of the development of you own legal system and government: some laws don't make sense. However, once you take the time to learn something, those laws are either misguided, archaic or (gasp) essential.

And please, please, please go to an AA meeting. It's anonymous, you don't have to say anything. Just go. Listen to the stories of the people there. Life is not always about choices.

Also, Turonx, while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The American Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't think you'll find in this the intention for every individual to be their own militia. If you're going to make a case for personal Firearms you have to find it in the ninth amendment. And to do that you have to believe that carrying a gun is a right granted through natural law. Which I do not.

Although we are capable of turning any object into a tool for killing, guns have no other purpose. To claim that natural law gives us the right to posses tools made exclusively for killing is to claim that natural law gives us the right to kill.


I do see where your coming from and I didn't say all ppl shouldn't hold guns...yes they can be used to protect your family your property, what i'm saying is a majority of the people just can't handle using a gun...sooner or later your going to see a man who just caught his wife cheating or his daughter got hit my a car and a screw is gonna get loose...


One man can mean the death of ten.

Thats all I have to say...

[jschild]

I love how england has such high gun rates. Oh wait, they don't.

for the 2002 year, we had...
26.53 TIMES (times, not percent) the amount of people murdered by guns as England. That's adjusted for population, and not a direct amount (because we have more people, you can't compare actuals to each other).

We also had 12 times the amount of gun deaths from other causes, mostly accidents.

So guess what, we do have far more gun problems than Englad.

Also compared to Canada, our gun homicide rate is 9.95 times their rate, and guns are legal there.

So, please..stop using totally false arguements to support it. The arguement is fine, but lets stick to actual facts.

[Glurin]

I agree. Gun rates are really the wrong figures to look at on either side of the argument anyway.

Besides, we're the ones stuck with Detroit. :grin:

[Glurin]

I do see where your coming from and I didn't say all ppl shouldn't hold guns...yes they can be used to protect your family your property, what i'm saying is a majority of the people just can't handle using a gun...sooner or later your going to see a man who just caught his wife cheating or his daughter got hit my a car and a screw is gonna get loose...

Sorry for double posting, but I just wanted to say that the idea that most people can't handle a gun is simply not true. Its not much different than saying most people can't handle driving a car. Sooner or later your going to see a man who got angry at the guy in front of him or got pulled over by the police one to many times and a screw is gonna get loose.

Yes, it happens. But no where near the level your trying to make a case for. I can understand how you might think differently though, seeing as how the press likes to plaster a madman gone wild all over the place. But lets think about this for a minute. You have one major event a month (when they really dig and focus on that sort of thing), defined as a shooting rampage in a public place. Thats one person out of well over 300 MILLION each month. There are 250 million guns out there, give or take 30 million, owned by those 300 million people. Your looking at about a .000000004% major "gone crazy" factor each month. Even if you try to account for incidents that don't get covered by the news networks, the numbers just flat do not support your claim.

[Turonx]

Sorry for double posting, but I just wanted to say that the idea that most people can't handle a gun is simply not true. Its not much different than saying most people can't handle driving a car. Sooner or later your going to see a man who got angry at the guy in front of him or got pulled over by the police one to many times and a screw is gonna get loose.

Yes, it happens. But no where near the level your trying to make a case for. I can understand how you might think differently though, seeing as how the press likes to plaster a madman gone wild all over the place. But lets think about this for a minute. You have one major event a month (when they really dig and focus on that sort of thing), defined as a shooting rampage in a public place. Thats one person out of well over 300 MILLION each month. There are 250 million guns out there, give or take 30 million, owned by those 300 million people. Your looking at about a .000000004% major "gone crazy" factor each month. Even if you try to account for incidents that don't get covered by the news networks, the numbers just flat do not support your claim.


Well when I said people can't handle a a gun i meant it in a mental state such as their ego or judgement. Idk those stats are great and I can see where your coming from but I would still like to save that .000000004% major "gone crazy", now I hope you don't misunderstand me I'm not anti-guns, i'm fine with people having them but when you give someone a gun things can change depending on the person. I'm not saying all are going to go nuts on us but some are going to abuse there power to hold guns. My opinion is weird I know and you guys/girls don't have to agree with me just see my side of our conversation ok cause I'm trying be open minded about this subject, which most people such as Glurin and Jschild are making excellent points.

[elsegundo]

Someone told me the % of road rage that happens in texas is lowest of all the states in the US. they attribute it to the fact that Texans can carry guns in their cars. but that was probably a joke... and i probably just added nonsense to this thread.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Someone told me the % of road rage that happens in texas is lowest of all the states in the US. they attribute it to the fact that Texans can carry guns in their cars. but that was probably a joke... and i probably just added nonsense to this thread.

You'd be amazed at how much of a deterrence to violence it is when people can carry firearms, or concealed firearms. It makes the criminal fight off sheer survival instincts to do... well.... anything that might get him/her shot.

[jschild]

Yeah, that's why there is no gang violence, because you know they wouldn't attack someone they know is armed or anything.

Also, as he stated, it was just hearsay. If there is statistics that back it up, fine. Otherwise, its just personal opinion pushed as fact, which ALL of us have been guilty of. The very least we can all try is to state any falsehoods (IE, Britain gun crime is bad, which it isn't anything compared to ours).

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Yeah, that's why there is no gang violence, because you know they wouldn't attack someone they know is armed or anything.

Talk about taking what I said, and distorting it. For one thing, I didn't say it would eliminate all violence or crime. I'd just said that it is a deterrence. Gang violence, as problematic as it is, doesn't exist in a number of places. Places where everyone could be "packing". A lot of the gang violence works off the premise that the average person can't defend him or herself. If the average person could, the gangs would not be as prominently active.

When I lived in Tennessee, the joke I'd heard was "y'know what the difference between a gang drive-by and a pickup full of good ol' boys is? The good ol' boys 'll hit what they shoot at." Now... I'm not advocating violence, on the contrary. I'm just saying that the situation which currently exists throughout the US and other countries, where the average person is restricted/prevented from carrying a weapon, means that the criminals are armed, and the average citizen is not. This doesn't bode well for the average citizen.

Also, as he stated, it was just hearsay. If there is statistics that back it up, fine. Otherwise, its just personal opinion pushed as fact, which ALL of us have been guilty of. The very least we can all try is to state any falsehoods (IE, Britain gun crime is bad, which it isn't anything compared to ours).

Britain also has a significantly smaller population than the US, and a higher ratio of police/law enforcement in their total population. It honestly is apples & oranges in that comparison.

I'm not saying one solution is overall better than the other. Everything has its positives and negatives -- the key people are always searching for is minimizing the negatives while maximizing the positives, but it is elusive. I know from personal experience living in a few different cities, and walking through them, especially at night, that there is a variety of different problems that can be posed.

I've lived in Los Angeles, heck, worked in South-Central LA for a while. I've also lived in Frankfurt Germany (well, just outside it), and in Nashville Tennessee. Those three cities had radically different night environments. LA.... well it is just plain dangerous in places. Frankfurt has a seedier area, but for the most part it is sort of locked down at night. And Nashville was pretty safe to do things at night as well. In LA, the average person can't carry a firearm, but the gangs do. In Nashville, you can get a concealed firearm license, and anyone could be "packing". In Frankfurt Germany.... the police have sub-machine guns (loaded ones at that), and there is no "police brutality" laws in Germany (or at least wasn't when I lived there).

Each has its ups and downs, I've seen a lot of rowdy/violence in Britain... gun violence not so much, but get around Football season, don't even think about saying anything bad about it near a British pub... if you value not having broken bones, that is. None are perfect, each attempts its own method and approach to handle the situation, and each can point to the other and claim that the others aren't getting it right.

[jschild]

My point is, and one that has not been clearly shown in this thread, is where is the evidence. The only thing that has been bandied around as "proof" was the mistaken notion that the british have a gun violence problem, same as us. Which they do not.

And if you had read my earlier post, the comparison was taking population into account and ours was outrageously higher. Now, it did not take the police/population ratio into account, but most of the thread was based on the notion that the police are bad/evil, but that cannot be if they are keeping crime down (You did not push this belief afaik, so that was not directed at you).

I do agree with you that there is no perfect solution, as most every one comes with very bad problems in its own right. It is simply finding that balance that is the most difficult of things. Simply adding guns, nor removing them, will make much of a huge difference. The reason for the violence is not the guns, but cultural in nature. It is the culture that breeds the violence that must be attacked more than any gun problem. Adding more guns does nothing to help the problem, but outlawing them would not either. Until people realize that and agree to focus on the root cause, nothing unfortnantly will be accomplished.

[Glurin]

Yeah, that's why there is no gang violence, because you know they wouldn't attack someone they know is armed or anything.



That reminds me, I read a statistic several years ago that criminals spend much more time casing a house before robbing it in the U.S. than they do in Great Britain. Days rather than minutes. The stated cause, according to the survey of various prisons, was because they didn't want to get shot.

If I come across it again, I'll let you know.

[jschild]

Well, most criminals here don't case at all, but that is talking the standard stupid variety.

If we are talking about professional buglers I can see how that might be true. Haven't heard that one before, but who knows?

[Valas Azuviir]

You'd also have to take into account security systems, which seem to be a tad more common over in the States than on this end of the pond.

[Kugan]

Just on the gun crime (this isn't really where I wanted this thread to go... :smiley:):


In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[18] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[19] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[20]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.[21] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[22]


So saying that there is still gun crime in England (50... yep, that sure is a lot) is slightly true.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

You do have to factor in the population difference. The more people there are in a given area or group, the higher the percentage of them that will cause problems. At least, in my experience.

[jschild]

Just on the gun crime (this isn't really where I wanted this thread to go... :smiley:):



So saying that there is still gun crime in England (50... yep, that sure is a lot) is slightly true.

50 gun murders with a population of 8 million is actually 0.62 gun murders per 100,000 people.

[Glurin]

Just on the gun crime (this isn't really where I wanted this thread to go... ):


So saying that there is still gun crime in England (50... yep, that sure is a lot) is slightly true.

Here's the first question that came to mind when I read that. "Why those particular years?"

With just a little bit of research I found that 2005/06 was England's lowest gun related homicide year out of at least an 8 year span. The rate has actually gone up a little the next year. 2000 and 2005 for the U.S. were about the same as far as murder rate is concerned. However, these comparisons are seriously flawed, both through ignorance and deliberate fudging of numbers.

One big thing that always gets overlooked is that these are very different cultures. FYI, England already had a significantly lower murder rate than the u.s. before they baned guns. (That number spiked after they did, but it was still lower than the u.s.) Does this mean banning guns means less murder? Absolutely not. The u.s. actually has a much higher non-gun related murder rate than England's total murder rate. This should tell you that there is a lot more to crime than the mere presence of guns, just as there is a whole lot more to guns than shooting sprees in shopping malls.

jschild said it best: "Until people realize that and agree to focus on the root cause, nothing unfortnantly will be accomplished."

[surodat]

You do have to factor in the population difference. The more people there are in a given area or group, the higher the percentage of them that will cause problems. At least, in my experience.

In Canada, the places with the highest violent crime rates are in the middle of the Country, in smaller towns in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The HIGHEST crime rate per/100,000 in Canada is in the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut, with extremely low population density.

Yet another example of anecdotal evidence being the most useless kind of evidence.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

In Canada, the places with the highest violent crime rates are in the middle of the Country, in smaller towns in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The HIGHEST crime rate per/100,000 in Canada is in the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut, with extremely low population density.

Yet another example of anecdotal evidence being the most useless kind of evidence.

I wouldn't say it is the most useless, it just isn't a 100% fit for everything.

[surodat]

I wouldn't say it is the most useless, it just isn't a 100% fit for everything.

Yeah, you're right, anecdotal evidence is useful for small things. I was very broad with that statement. To clarify:

Sometimes personal anecdotal evidence can supersede or fill-in for quantitative evidence due to its strong emotional influence. We are very good at extrapolating from personal experience to form general rules, even if the personal experience is not one that would lead to a correct general rule.