Resolution 1022

[Bastet Furry]

Naked Snake said:

Yeah, pretty much. Though honestly, I'd rather have my 20 gauge Mossberg 500 if somebody broke in instead of a rifle-caliber weapon. Low penetration, high stopping power. Redoing walls is annoying >_<

And who undoes the blood paintings?!? ;)

[Texas Libra]

AndrewB said:

I've long been torn on the idea of gun control. Sure, if you restrict the sales of firearms, you may save a few hundred lives over the course of a few years. On the other hand, a well-armed population is one that can defend itself against government-instigated genocide and door-to-door ethnic cleansing (the type of which we've seen in Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even today in Sudan). Not only that, but a well-armed population would likely stop a genocide attempt before it even starts, as the death armies would otherwise be facing certain doom.

What to think, what to think...

Of course, the paradox of that might be that a government that allows its citizens to be well-armed would never even THINK to instigate genocide...

Or something.

[Dr. Zin]

Texas Libra said:

Of course, the paradox of that might be that a government that allows its citizens to be well-armed would never even THINK to instigate genocide...

Or something.

That is a fallacy though, there are many examples of genocide or other bloody conflict where there are almost no gun laws. Sierra Leone is a good example. The difference is that the government is not committing the attrocities, it is other citizens.

[Quasar]

The government continues to try to enact gun control while constantly increasing the Orwellian arsenal at its own disposal. Pain rays, heart attack guns, sonic weapons, flash sticks. What are we going to do when these toys fall into the wrong hands?

[GGG]

Quasar said:

The government continues to try to enact gun control while constantly increasing the Orwellian arsenal at its own disposal. Pain rays, heart attack guns, sonic weapons, flash sticks. What are we going to do when these toys fall into the wrong hands?

Well, those weapons aren't supposed to be lethal, so I'd imagine a bow and arrow could do the trick.

[Dr. Zin]

GGG said:

Well, those weapons aren't supposed to be lethal, so I'd imagine a bow and arrow could do the trick.

There are generally men with sub-machineguns guarding the "Non-Lethal" weapons.

[GGG]

Then wouldn't the men with the guns be a greater threat?
Seriously, though, how do non-lethal weapons "fall into the wrong hands"? I think police would rather fight a group of criminals brandishing sonic weapons than a group of criminals with Ak-47s.

[Dr. Zin]

GGG said:

Then wouldn't the men with the guns be a greater threat?
Seriously, though, how do non-lethal weapons "fall into the wrong hands"? I think police would rather fight a group of criminals brandishing sonic weapons than a group of criminals with Ak-47s.

The threat isn't the criminals aquiring them. These are huge crowd control devices. Thus you have the (generally vehicle mounted) heat-beam/sonic-stunner, with a bunch of armed officers on foot guarding it.

[GGG]

So you're referring to if opposing armies get ahold of it. Well, that's why American troops have shoulder mounted smart rockets with 2 mile ranges.

[Dr. Zin]

No, what is being referred to is the fact that there are movements to disarm the common citizen and give equipment to governmental forces that has a large capacity for abuse, like these "Non-Lethal" crowd control devices.

[GGG]

Then what are you implying? If citizens are allowed to have arms, then they can feel free to shoot the crowd control devices?

The government would only use these things in riot situations-- situations where crowds are endangering people and property. Police already have crowd control devices, which happen to be impervious to gunfire. Fire hoses, tear gas, and riot control grenades to name a few. If anything, such new crowd control devices will stop riots quicker and save more lives.

I hardly see how using these in place of police brutality, rubber bullets, and attack dogs is considered abuse.

[Dr. Zin]

GGG said:

Then what are you implying? If citizens are allowed to have arms, then they can feel free to shoot the crowd control devices?

The government would only use these things in riot situations-- situations where crowds are endangering people and property. Police already have crowd control devices, which happen to be impervious to gunfire. Fire hoses, tear gas, and riot control grenades to name a few. If anything, such new crowd control devices will stop riots quicker and save more lives.

I hardly see how using these in place of police brutality, rubber bullets, and attack dogs is considered abuse.

Is it OK to wiretap everyone's phone to prevent terrorism? Just because this technology could help doesn't mean it can't be easily abused.

These devices could be used against riots, but what about striking workers? Or legitmate protestors? How about these devices used to impose martial law by preventing anyone from leaving their house?

A good example of this is the current abuse of Tasers. The Taser is meant to be used on suspects presenting a direct physical threat to themselves and others, yet many times they are used to force individuals who are merely non-compliant to obey an officer of the law. There have also been cases of Tasers being used as a form of torture to procure confessions, as they don't leave evidence on the target's body.

There is no First Amendment without the second. You have no rights if you are unable to resist them being denied.

[Naked Snake]

Guy goes apeshit, kills one person and wounds three others, then offs himself. At a MENU PRINTING facility.

If this happened in England :

-What weapon did he use? Ban it, immediately. How many rounds did it hold? 5? Too much, better make it 3. What type of ammo did it shoot? Well, obviously it can do more than cause a minor inconvience. Ban it.

American response :

-Damn, that one guy got fucking shot.

[GGG]

Dr. Zin said:

Is it OK to wiretap everyone's phone to prevent terrorism? Just because this technology could help doesn't mean it can't be easily abused.

These devices could be used against riots, but what about striking workers? Or legitmate protestors? How about these devices used to impose martial law by preventing anyone from leaving their house?

I wouldn't relate the phone wiretapping issue with this. That's a privacy-invasion issue. These weapons are a matter of public use.

Are police officers allowed to use tear gas, rubber bullets, and stun grenades against legit protestors? Why would the government use martial law in the first place? And if they had to use martial law, what would stop them from doing it without these weapons? Maybe more manpower, but I highly doubt the government is about to go martial-law on civilians in their own homes just because it's a little easier to do now. This seems almost paranoid.

Dr. Zin said:

A good example of this is the current abuse of Tasers. The Taser is meant to be used on suspects presenting a direct physical threat to themselves and others, yet many times they are used to force individuals who are merely non-compliant to obey an officer of the law. There have also been cases of Tasers being used as a form of torture to procure confessions, as they don't leave evidence on the target's body.

Before tasers, officers would be forced to wrestle non-compliant individuals to the ground. Often, these individuals are drunks, and often these individuals retaliate. Using tasers on unpredictable drunks can keep officers and the individual from getting hurt. There have been cases where certain people have been killed with a taser. But there have also been cases where people have been killed from being beaten or shot from police as well. Tasers are usually a safer alternative to night sticks.

[Dr. Zin]

GGG said:

I wouldn't relate the phone wiretapping issue with this. That's a privacy-invasion issue. These weapons are a matter of public use.

And the development of these area effect riot weapons is a First Amendment issue, namely the right to assemble.

GGG said:

Are police officers allowed to use tear gas, rubber bullets, and stun grenades against legit protestors? Why would the government use martial law in the first place? And if they had to use martial law, what would stop them from doing it without these weapons? Maybe more manpower, but I highly doubt the government is about to go martial-law on civilians in their own homes just because it's a little easier to do now. This seems almost paranoid.

Do you think the average turn-of-the-century Russian thought that anything was going to come from the group of academics railing about "The Rights of the Proletariat?"

Wasn't Fidel Castro laughed at by Batista?

What about General Pinochet and all of the critics he had "disappear."

Just because right now there is no obvious authoritarian or totalitarian force does not mean that we should be complacent.

GGG said:

Before tasers, officers would be forced to wrestle non-compliant individuals to the ground. Often, these individuals are drunks, and often these individuals retaliate. Using tasers on unpredictable drunks can keep officers and the individual from getting hurt. There have been cases where certain people have been killed with a taser. But there have also been cases where people have been killed from being beaten or shot from police as well. Tasers are usually a safer alternative to night sticks.

Again, if the subject is not a threat to themselves or others how can you justify the use of such a device? Does merely being publicly intoxicated and willful merit the use of a Taser?

A Taser is meant to be a more effective and less damaging form of a nightstick. That means that it should be only used in situations where a nightstick would be appropriate.

[Quasar]

Dr. Zin said:

Just because right now there is no obvious authoritarian or totalitarian force ...

Sorry I liked the rest of your post but this part makes me ROFL. :)

[Dr. Zin]

OK, replace obvious with blatantly overt.

And actually there are multiple authoritarian groups, but all have different agendas. For example, the social fascism of the Evangelical Right Wing is much different than attempts to control the flow of information by the big "Intellectual Property" holders.

[Quast]

GGG said:

Are police officers allowed to use tear gas, rubber bullets, and stun grenades against legit protestors?

Technically? Probably not, but they certainly have in the past and likley will do so in the future. Really, the police are "allowed" to do pretty much whatever they want within certain bounds as long as they can get away with it.

[Ultraviolet]

I started to write this post out of order, jumping around. I decided to give up and just summarize. Anyway: Europeans and Whitebread Summer-Home-In-The-Hamptons Americans have no grounding in what American life and society are really like, and I have no interest in their unrealistic opinions as to how the United States should be run; guns are not to blame (JUST LIKE DRUGS, PEOPLE -- ALL YOU "LEGALIZE POT BUT BAN GUNS" FOLKS LISTEN UP) for social ills that spur violence, and THAT is why decreasing LEGAL arms sales does NOTHING (black markets can't even assure quality goods, and then you have people dying in sales-gone-wrong because somebody thinks he's getting screwed, or the cops show up, or whatever). Weapons won't go away, because they are used by the military and police, and manufacturers will always want to sell more, and no government force should have more weight than the entirety of the population it governs, because we all know, in the backs of our minds, that "of, for, and by the people" is BULLSHIT, because you can't trust anyone with control over your own life -- not the ability to run it, and not the ability to take it.

Remember: "Greed is eternal." :P

Some might say, in response to a lot of posting in this thread, that we should give the police MORE power to stop violent crimes. Interesting thing about violent crime -- in order to prevent every act of violence, or even a significant portion, we'd have to have a much larger police force.
- First, who wants to be watched by the authorities all the time? It already pisses me off that I'm generally assumed to be a shoplifter everywhere I go. Gee golly, don't I feel so safe, like when the cops automatically blind me with their fucking flashlights, and walk around with their hands on their guns all the time? I sure am glad I have a good reason to trust them.
- Second, a larger number of police would have to come from somewhere, like the general population. Then, we once again have a large population of randomly armed motherfuckers. Oh yeah, arms should definitely be held exclusively by the establishment, what with all the crooked politics going on ALL THE TIME. It's OK. We can trust them.
- Third, you can't prevent violent crimes, you can only prosecute them. They happen way too fast. And violent crimes are often crimes of passion. They're not thinking about the consequences. They're not thinking about how the big bad po-lice will be on 'dey ass prosecuting them.

[GGG]

Dr. Zin said:

And the development of these area effect riot weapons is a First Amendment issue, namely the right to assemble.

There has always been a limit to the First Amendment. When protests turn into disturbing the peace, the First Amendment no longer applies. If a protest is executed orderly and without holding up traffic and/or violating ordinances, the police shouldn't intervene. Plus, if they were going to intervene in the first place, they would have done it before these "mass-control devices" came into use. That's what I'm trying to get at here. Police may have access to more efficient riot control tools, but it doesn't mean they're going to abuse them. At least not without causing major controversy and political action.

Dr. Zin said:

Do you think the average turn-of-the-century Russian thought that anything was going to come from the group of academics railing about "The Rights of the Proletariat?"

Wasn't Fidel Castro laughed at by Batista?

What about General Pinochet and all of the critics he had "disappear."

Just because right now there is no obvious authoritarian or totalitarian force does not mean that we should be complacent.

Okay. If you're worried about the government taking complete control of the populace, then you have other issues to deal with. There's no way it's going to happen. Not only is it unconstitutional, it goes against everything the country was built upon.

Dr. Zin said:

Again, if the subject is not a threat to themselves or others how can you justify the use of such a device? Does merely being publicly intoxicated and willful merit the use of a Taser?

A Taser is meant to be a more effective and less damaging form of a nightstick. That means that it should be only used in situations where a nightstick would be appropriate.

Tasers aren't supposed to be used on people who are just intoxicated but on those who are disobeying an officer's orders and displaying threatening behavior. Police have used this at times when it arguably wasn't necessary, but it's kept officers from having to draw their guns on insubordinate individuals. Tasers are still met with controversy, but statistics are on their side.

Quast said:

Technically? Probably not, but they certainly have in the past and likley will do so in the future. Really, the police are "allowed" to do pretty much whatever they want within certain bounds as long as they can get away with it.

Well, if they did, I don't see how using more efficient dispersal devices will do any greater harm.

[Ultraviolet]

GGG said:

When protests turn into disturbing the peace, the First Amendment no longer applies.

The American Revolution could have been considered massive disturbance of the peace.

If a protest is executed orderly and without holding up traffic and/or violating ordinances, the police shouldn't intervene.

Ah, OK, so if one person interferes with what another person wants to be doing, like driving to work, then the police should jump in? Well where are the police to jump in on the part of the protestors, who are just doing what they want to be doing?

Plus, if they were going to intervene in the first place, they would have done it before these "mass-control devices" came into use. That's what I'm trying to get at here.

Authority just assumes what will happen without really knowing. "This could potentially get out of hand" is enough for them.

Police may have access to more efficient riot control tools, but it doesn't mean they're going to abuse them. At least not without causing major controversy and political action.

UNLESS 'DEYS NEGROES INVOLVED. But seriously, no, that's not the reason they won't abuse them, that's the reason they will only GRADUALLY abuse them. There will be occasional public reaction tests, and their spin doctors will be there for damage control. When they've got a crowd control weapon big enough and subtle enough (see mass media, chemicals in food to alter brain chemistry, subliminals, whatever) to take care of the whole country, THEN they'll do it outright, but nobody will care. To trust any organized force with the means to outright control your whole life is completely unacceptable. ("We will abolish the orgasm! Our neurologists are already hard at work on it.")

Okay. If you're worried about the government taking complete control of the populace, then you have other issues to deal with. There's no way it's going to happen. Not only is it unconstitutional, it goes against everything the country was built upon.

Oh, OK. Things that are unconstitutional don't happen in the United States. The founding fathers themselves are still alive and well here watching over our freedoms, making sure everything goes A-OK.

Tasers aren't supposed to be used on people who are just intoxicated but on those who are disobeying an officer's orders and displaying threatening behavior. Police have used this at times when it arguably wasn't necessary, but it's kept officers from having to draw their guns on insubordinate individuals. Tasers are still met with controversy, but statistics are on their side.

Statistics aren't on tasers' side, they're on statisticians' sides and politicians' sides. You know, those insane fuckers who want to control us all, and now they have the means, because of complacent idiots who think that the way things are SUPPOSED to work is the way things DO work?

[GGG]

Ultraviolet said:

The American Revolution could have been considered massive disturbance of the peace.

The American Revolution ended before the amendments of the Bill of Rights were adopted.

Ultraviolet said:

Ah, OK, so if one person interferes with what another person wants to be doing, like driving to work, then the police should jump in? Well where are the police to jump in on the part of the protestors, who are just doing what they want to be doing?

What are you trying to say? Police should allow disturbing the peace? And police often act to help protestors. There are often officers making sure opposers don't harass the protestors. When two opposing protests occur simultaneously, cops try to keep things peaceful. The officers are there to keep the peace.

Ultraviolet said:

Authority just assumes what will happen without really knowing. "This could potentially get out of hand" is enough for them.

Preventive measures are usually based on previous experiences. Should they wait until the matter gets out of hand before intervening every time? That would obviously lead to a lot of problems.

Ultraviolet said:

There will be occasional public reaction tests, and their spin doctors will be there for damage control. When they've got a crowd control weapon big enough and subtle enough (see mass media, chemicals in food to alter brain chemistry, subliminals, whatever) to take care of the whole country, THEN they'll do it outright, but nobody will care. To trust any organized force with the means to outright control your whole life is completely unacceptable. ("We will abolish the orgasm! Our neurologists are already hard at work on it.")

There are too many factors keeping the government from taking control of the public. No need to get all Orwellian.

Ultraviolet said:

Oh, OK. Things that are unconstitutional don't happen in the United States. The founding fathers themselves are still alive and well here watching over our freedoms, making sure everything goes A-OK.

If something unconstitutional happens, it doesn't go unnoticed in the sovereign courts.

Ultraviolet said:

Statistics aren't on tasers' side, they're on statisticians' sides and politicians' sides. You know, those insane fuckers who want to control us all, and now they have the means, because of complacent idiots who think that the way things are SUPPOSED to work is the way things DO work?

Statistics are based on facts. Even those created by government institutions. Tasers aren't perfect, and if they become misused, steps will be taken to stem their improper usage. Tasers are still in a testing and evaluation phase in many districts. Time will tell whether they are worth using in all regions.

[Bloodshedder]

GGG said:

The American Revolution ended before the amendments of the Bill of Rights were adopted.

The Bill of Rights does not, and was not intended to grant essential rights to American citizens. They were written as a recognition of rights inherent to all citizens, and were placed in the Constitution to to prevent the government from taking away those inherent rights.

[GGG]

Bloodshedder said:

The Bill of Rights does not, and was not intended to grant essential rights to American citizens. They were written as a recognition of rights inherent to all citizens, and were placed in the Constitution to to prevent the government from taking away those inherent rights.

The Bill of Rights was in place to limit the power of the government, and as such, they can't abridge the privileges of citizens. What I was getting at was how before the Bill of Rights, such levels of limitation were not in place.

[Ultraviolet]

GGG said:

The Bill of Rights was in place to limit the power of the government, and as such, they can't abridge the privileges of citizens. What I was getting at was how before the Bill of Rights, such levels of limitation were not in place.

That's kind of a "Lincoln freed the slaves" take on the matter. Words on paper don't get things done. Most often, people with guns (or tools of whatever sort) do. The Bill of Rights doesn't DO anything.

[Dr. Zin]

GGG said:

The Bill of Rights was in place to limit the power of the government, and as such, they can't abridge the privileges of citizens. What I was getting at was how before the Bill of Rights, such levels of limitation were not in place.

And if there is no tool to enforce these rights then it is only a sheet of paper.

i.e. We can have laws against murder, or robbery, or what have you, but if there is not police force to enforce them they are meaningless.

[Sharessa]

Did you know a law was recently passed that allows the government to put American citizens into work camps? Yeah, try preventing the government from taking you away when you have no guns. This nation is crumbling and those in power are getting desperate. Desperate people wielding power are dangerous people.

[GGG]

Ultraviolet said:

The Bill of Rights doesn't DO anything.

Dr. Zin said:

And if there is no tool to enforce these rights then it is only a sheet of paper.
i.e. We can have laws against murder, or robbery, or what have you, but if there is not police force to enforce them they are meaningless.

Well, obviously the politicians and government officials enforce the laws, and police/officers/"men with guns" enforce the laws they are relegated to. Whether or not there is a police force to enforce such laws doesn't seem relevant. Why wouldn't there be a police force? Granted, budget restraints and other matters may limit police forces in regions, but the laws are still enforced.

[Dr. Zin]

Are you totally oblivious to the point being made?

[fraggle]

Naked Snake said:

-Damn, that one guy got fucking shot.

Sounds like an advertisement for the British approach to me. You're so used to gun crime that to you it's perfectly normal for lunatics to go on murderous rampages. The idea of someone doing something like what is described in the article you linked to is so unusual, so utterly alien to us, that this kind of thing is shocking and front page news in Britain. Instead, in America, it's just another three victims of gun culture.