faetal on 12/6/2016 at 01:36
VA - you seem to have linked Fox News non-ironically...
Volitions Advocate on 12/6/2016 at 02:14
Is that some faux pas? I don't watch American media, I don't know the difference. In any case, it reports the incident I was talking about, I don't see any kind of agenda in the reporting.
EDIT: Actually that wasn't even the link I meant to post. It isn't even of the same story I was referring to. I have fixed the link.
Volitions Advocate on 12/6/2016 at 02:16
Quote Posted by Starker
It depends on whether you want a society where violence is the first resort and the police act with extreme prejudice or a society where violence is the last resort and the police consider non-violent options first. Parts of the USA lean towards the former while parts of Europe lean towards the latter, with a lot of grey area in between.
I fail to see what this has to do with handicapping the ability of the police to respond with force when they have to. What you are talking about is a different issue. It's not like the police don't kill people with "non-lethal" options like tasers. I'm sure everybody has seen the recent viral post going around. As you said. Lots of grey areas, but it seems for the most part everybody assumes the worst.
Starker on 12/6/2016 at 02:26
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
.... but the other soldier on duty wasn't able to do anything about it either because both of their guns were empty. As required. Why it makes sense to have a soldier guard something with an empty gun is beyond me.
That's because they are there to (
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/war-memorial-guard-program-is-designed-for-dignity) keep drunken teenagers from pissing on the monument and/or skateboarding in front of it. What, are they going to shoot kids with live ammunition?
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I fail to see what this has to do with handicapping the ability of the police to respond with force when they have to. What you are talking about is a different issue. It's not like the police don't kill people with "non-lethal" options like tasers. I'm sure everybody has seen the recent viral post going around. As you said. Lots of grey areas, but it seems for the most part everybody assumes the worst.
Well, you posted the story about the police trying to gun down an unarmed man while the crowd pleaded them not to. That's kind of what you have to deal with in a society where everyone is assumed to have a gun.
Volitions Advocate on 12/6/2016 at 02:38
Check the link, I re-posted the correct story.
It still has nothing to do with handicapping the tools they need to do their job, unless you're talking about taking the guns away from cops entirely, in which case you might have a point even though I doubt anybody in New York State ever assumes anybody has a gun, there are very few if any states less friendly to that sort of thing that I have come across in my reading. It still comes down to other factors, like training and temperament. If you don't want a cop to use a gun, don't give him one. Makes a lot more sense than giving him a broken one.
Also. Corporal Cirillo wasn't pissed on or skateboarded over. He was shot.
The Scots Guards aren't armed to shoot tourists who like to try to make them smile either. But they are nonetheless.
Starker on 12/6/2016 at 02:43
The soldiers there weren't guarding Corporal Cirillo. They were standing in front of a monument as a deterrent to teenagers.
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
The Scots Guards aren't armed to shoot tourists who like to try to make them smile either. But they are nonetheless.
It's Queen's Guard. And actually, when guarding royal palaces, their guns aren't loaded.
catbarf on 12/6/2016 at 13:27
Quote Posted by faetal
I think a lot of the problems could be solved by simply banning the right to carry them in public. In the UK, if you are caught with a gun in public, you're probably going to prison, so very few people would risk it. UK gun crime is practically non-existent despite (as was clarified earlier) a deceptively high amount of gun owners. Of course criminals still carry guns outside with them if they are planning to do something, but it's very rare simply because criminals don't expect their victims to carry guns, so they have less cause to risk arrest for carrying one. In the US, the gun is the baseline threat (varies by state of course), so it's a default thing to carry for offence and defence (though defence remains debatable since someone generally has to have their gun already in play to determine if you'll also need yours, by which point it's too late to use it).
Have a look at the crime stats for New York City, DC, and LA; all places that effectively ban public carry. Despite the lack of public carry and the penalties for being caught with a gun, criminals tend to arm themselves when possible and the homicide rates remain high. You're suggesting that a majority of our homicides are criminals preying on innocents in public, like muggings that turn into murders, when stats show that that isn't the case by a long shot. Firearms are used as compliance tools during muggings, but most criminals aren't looking to commit murder. Most of our homicide comes from inner-city kids having no social support, no protection from the police, and no clear way out of the ghetto, leading them to turn to gangs for protection. That's why our homicide rate is shockingly high in bigger cities, but actually fairly low in suburbs and rural areas.
faetal on 12/6/2016 at 13:35
That's interesting and makes sense.
Makes me wonder why people feel they need guns for protection though.
SubJeff on 12/6/2016 at 13:40
Another day, another mass shooting in the USA.
And of course Christina Grimmie killed for... what?
Over 370 mass shootings last year but nooooo, this has nothing to do with availability of guns.
Yes, there are "reasons" for this other than guns, but that's besides the point. Guns just make it so easy and the ease of access is ridiculous given the ongoing loss of life. And spare me the "right" this or that.
Idiocy.
nickie on 12/6/2016 at 15:07
I was reading about this earlier today. The article said something about shots being exchanged with a police officer on duty at the nightclub door. News has been updated since then and the report now says 'There was an exchange of fire with a police officer working at the club, but it is unclear whether that was inside or outside the venue.' I got the impression from the earlier report that police officers on duty at clubs was normal. The updated version doesn't refer to 'being on duty' as such. I was wondering whether police officers do actually do duty at clubs where we would have bouncers instead.
