|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
One thing that might help is helmet cameras. Apparently when police wear them, the rates of complaints against police go way down, presumably as a combination of the police knowing that they can be held responsible and of the public knowing that their complaints can be checked. I don't know what effect it has on policemen shooting people; I can guess, I haven't seen statistics.
Training is also important, I've read some interesting stuff on this. Police are already trained to shoot, and indeed not to shoot, but what can make a big difference is to train them not to get into situations where shooting starts to look like a good option.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The foremost issue is how to reduce gun deaths in this country. What we know is that the lower the prevalence of guns the lower the incidence of gun deaths. About the arming of police, I'd prefer something closer to the UK approach, but of course this would be impractical while the citizenry is still armed. But the U.S. citizenry will be armed for generations, no new laws, or increases in the size and scope of government will change it. Attempts to do it will only make a mess, similar to the national 55 mph speed limit of the 1970's. In the past decade or two, the city of Cincinnati, (or certain suburbs of it, I can't remember exactly) was having a seemingly unusual number of vicious attacks by "pit bull dogs". An ordinance was passed to "ban" that breed from the city. While I'm sure the ban resulted in that breed's decline in the areas it was enacted, it sure prompted a pride in ownership of pit bulls in other areas like Northern Ky. Government can never prepare for range and types of backlash that always happen to some extent when they nip away at traditional liberties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
There are three groups of people in the USA: people who don't have guns, sensible people who have guns and idiots who have guns. Gun control won't effect the people who don't have guns or the idiots who have guns. Agreed.
It's only for the sensible people who have guns; it helps them be sensible. That doesn't make any sense to me. They don't need help being sensible. They don't need to be made more helpless so as to be more vulnerable to the idiots who have guns, thus furthering the danger posed by idiots who have guns.
So your question really is: What's the proportion of sensible people who have guns compared to idiots who have guns? More idiots → less effective gun control. I don't understand why you think sensible gun owners need to be further controlled. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 2/3 quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I agree. I don't know what the cost or feasability is of helmet cams, but IMO the dash cams on their cars seem to work well, including showing people (through television newscasts) some of the dangers they face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Ah, here's a study. Body cameras correlate with a 50% reduction in "use-of-force, which encompasses physical force more than a basic control or compliance hold, including use of OC spray, baton, Taser, canine bite or firearm".
I don't know about cost, but it can't be that much --- if they can put a camera in my phone, they can put one on a policeman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
you've completely missed, or chosen to ignore my point.
others have responded to clarify, I'll avoid repeating what they said to allow you to focus and attempt an honest answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
The argument that Heathen is making is that people defending themselves with lethal force is that person judging the guilt of a crime and administering the death penalty, and that the average person should not have the capacity for that. Correct, Do you think that everyone should have that capacity/power?(given that you cited a bunch of cases where "the average person" administered the death penalty for crimes such as Shoplifting, burgalry, dangerous driving etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
What strikes me as missing from the pro-gun side of the debate, is the concept of reasonable force, in self-defence.
In the UK, we have a right of self defence - but our right is to use reasonable force in our defence. We are expected to act as decent, reasonable human beings - even when dealing with shitty little toe rags who are trying to steal from us or attack us. This is because we think that just because someone is a shitty little toe rag, it's very rarely right to use lethal force against them. I'm quite proud that we think like that. I fear that the debate in the US has become so polarized, that it is seen as an unbearable admission of weakness on the part of the pro-gun movement, to accept any concept of reasonableness. In fact, they want to go the opposite way, and have the right to kill somebody just because they felt a bit threatened by them. By moving the goalposts so far to the extreme, they don't need to worry about being limited by reasonableness any more. So people keep on dying, not because they were in the process of using lethal force against someone, but because they were sassy to someone; or were abusive; or were walking through a neighbourhood where they had a minority skin colour; or were mistaken for someone; or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And every last life taken away in these circumstances, is a life the pro-gunners are happy to see taken away, because their right to have a gun is more important. So here's a question for people who are pro-gun - should you have to show, legally, that it was reasonable to kill someone, because no other reasonable course of action was open to you to protect your life, in order to escape punishment for that person being killed ? Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
There are three groups of people in the USA: people who don't have guns, sensible people who have guns and idiots who have guns. Gun control won't effect the people who don't have guns or the idiots who have guns. It's only for the sensible people who have guns; it helps them be sensible. I disagree, Gun control will take the guns away from (at least some of) the idiots with guns.This leaves just idiots, who are far less dangerous than idiots with guns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I understand. You believe we can't get there (reduced gun deaths) from here (30,000 gun deaths per year) and should stop trying because of the law of unintended consequences as illustrated by the double nickle (and even better by prohibition). But by this reasoning government should never do anything. It doesn't seem particularly persuasive.
What means would you propose for reducing gun deaths? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
ringo writes:
That doesn't make any sense to me. It's only for the sensible people who have guns; it helps them be sensible. marc9000 writes:
Sure they do. Sense isn't something you're born with. You have to learn to be a good citizen.
They don't need help being sensible. marc9000 writes:
As I mentioned in another post, a gun is not a defensive weapon. Nobody is made "more helpless" by not having one.
They don't need to be made more helpless so as to be more vulnerable to the idiots who have guns, thus furthering the danger posed by idiots who have guns. marc9000 writes:
I didn't say the sensible people "need" to be controlled. They're the only ones who can be taught self-control. Part of self-control and part of being sensible is the understanding that you don't need a gun to be safe. I don't understand why you think sensible gun owners need to be further controlled."I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Heathen writes:
Fair enough. I disagree, Gun control will take the guns away from (at least some of) the idiots with guns."I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I fear that the debate in the US has become so polarized, that it is seen as an unbearable admission of weakness on the part of the pro-gun movement, to accept any concept of reasonableness. In fact, they want to go the opposite way, and have the right to kill somebody just because they felt a bit threatened by them. No reasonable pro-gun advocate expects to be able to kill someone without facing the U.S. legal system and make a case why he/she shouldn't be punished for what happened.
By moving the goalposts so far to the extreme, they don't need to worry about being limited by reasonableness any more. Oh come on, you know they understand there will be plenty of reasonableness at their trial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I understand. You believe we can't get there (reduced gun deaths) from here (30,000 gun deaths per year) and should stop trying because of the law of unintended consequences as illustrated by the double nickle (and even better by prohibition). But by this reasoning government should never do anything. It doesn't seem particularly persuasive. What means would you propose for reducing gun deaths? --Percy There are plenty of ways in the U.S. to address problems and issues without the federal government. Though the NRA and other pro-gun advocates might disagree with me, I wouldn't mind seeing a few states, like New York, or California, or Illinois take the lead on satisfying every anti-gun advocates desires, up to and including a complete ban of privately owned firearms. Then everyone in the entire country can watch how it works. We can see if crime goes down there. We can see if the police in those states all suddenly become pussycats like the U.K. police, or if some small percentage of them seem to retain their arrogance, and how the people in those states like it, and how it all compares with other states that left things how they are. I believe that's the way politics in the U.S. was intended to work - states can experiment, and if something works, other states can choose to follow that example. I'm glad you brought up prohibition. It's an important part of U.S. history IMO, and I think there are similarities in the alcoholic beverage conflict as there is in the gun conflict. Some may wonder why I call the alcoholic beverage issue a "conflict", but just because it isn't constantly in the news doesn't mean that everyone in the U.S. suddenly agreed in 1933 that recreational alcohol consumption is a wonderful thing. My home state of Kentucky has 120 counties - somewhere close to half of them are "dry", that is, sales of alcoholic beverages are prohibited, because the voters of those counties want it that way. It's true that there are some beer drinkers in dry counties, they just drive to neighboring counties to get their stuff, and I'm not sure if that's even illegal. Votes are taken periodically, and sometimes dry counties change and go wet. I'm not sure if it goes the other way these days or not. But my point is, I don't see why similar actions can't be taken with gun control, while almost completely leaving the federal government out of it. If a state action turns out to be the wrong thing to do, it's easier to reverse than a federal government action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: They don't need help being sensible. Sure they do. Sense isn't something you're born with. You have to learn to be a good citizen. In the U.S. we have to be taught how to live?? Who's the teacher?
marc9000 writes: They don't need to be made more helpless so as to be more vulnerable to the idiots who have guns, thus furthering the danger posed by idiots who have guns. As I mentioned in another post, a gun is not a defensive weapon. Nobody is made "more helpless" by not having one. That's a basic anti-gun opinion, and not considered true by many people. It's been covered before I'm sure.
marc9000 writes: I don't understand why you think sensible gun owners need to be further controlled. I didn't say the sensible people "need" to be controlled. They're the only ones who can be taught self-control. Part of self-control and part of being sensible is the understanding that you don't need a gun to be safe. That's not being sensible, it's being liberal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024