This Is Why We Need Guns

[Waddy]

So we need arms to prevent lynching ?

I'd prefer an efficient and effective police force


Small arms didn't prevent totalitarianism in the 20th century.

Here the average response time is 18 minutes. The guest at the lynching would be dead long before the police arrived. But they would be very efficient taking down the incident report.

 

[Waddy]

Why do RW gun owners think that criminals would get guns following a gun ban ?

Of course we will never eradicate guns from American society, but there would be a significant reduction of guns.

You're right; there would be a significant reduction of guns in the hands of the law abiding...not so much in the criminal element.

 

[Rich2018]

Gee. Sounds just like the FBI.

A bit

Except they'd be a uniformed police service (mostly) and a state bureau of investigation (like the Georgia Bureau of Investigation - GBI) would be part of it

And just look at how the top level bureaucrats in the FBI screwed up badly, and screwed themselves. The idea is that we need yet another one to do the same?

So what ?
If the FBI is broken, then fix it

Surely you're not suggesting that a small torn PD doesn't "screw up" regularly and is prone to corruption and nepotism etc ?

We do, however, need a national police service. If you don't like FBI, then reform it and call it something else
I'd incorporate the DEA and ATF into it.

For a supposedly "free" country, the USA has way too many security organization.

 

[Rich2018]

WTF does that have to do with it?

So we can dismiss your "one size fits all" crack

First off, different locations have different priorities and laws. Second you're taking away the ability of the local municipality to govern itself.

1. So what ?
A state wide police service might emphasize different objectives in different areas, depending on the issues it faced
Within a city the police in one neighborhood might face different issues and challenges to the rest of the city

2. And that is a benefit. A tightly knit community suspicious of outsiders and perhaps supporting racist policies, officers, would not be allowed to operate.
So a local small town PD could not ignore the law or the Constitution and do its own thing
A citizen in one part of the state would received equal treatment/protection in another part - you know just how it says in the Constitution

I disagree.

And I suspect you'd be in a small minority also inhabited by small town police chiefs.

 

[Rich2018]

Here the average response time is 18 minutes. The guest at the lynching would be dead long before the police arrived. But they would be very efficient taking down the incident report.

Then work to bring it down

Have state wide response time targets, and don't let a small town PD live in the past and do its own thing

You're right; there would be a significant reduction of guns in the hands of the law abiding...not so much in the criminal element.

Which would result in a knock-on effect on the not-so-law abiding (who mostly source their guns from legal sources)

So would I be right in saying you agree with the principal of disarming America, but base your objections to it on the practicalities of achieving it ?

 

[Waddy]

Then work to bring it down

Have state wide response time targets, and don't let a small town PD live in the past and do its own thing




Which would result in a knock-on effect on the not-so-law abiding (who mostly source their guns from legal sources)

So would I be right in saying you agree with the principal of disarming America, but base your objections to it on the practicalities of achieving it ?

there'd be a "knockoff effect" all right...more dead law abiding citizens. And, no.... I don't wish to disarm America. I want every law abiding citizen to have a gun..Oh, wait, looks like mission accomplished. I think pretty much all Americans are now armed.

 

[Bullseye]

So we can dismiss your "one size fits all" crack

Uh, no. It's the basis of my argument.

1. So what ?
A state wide police service might emphasize different objectives in different areas, depending on the issues it faced
Within a city the police in one neighborhood might face different issues and challenges to the rest of the city

2. And that is a benefit. A tightly knit community suspicious of outsiders and perhaps supporting racist policies, officers, would not be allowed to operate.
So a local small town PD could not ignore the law or the Constitution and do its own thing
A citizen in one part of the state would received equal treatment/protection in another part - you know just how it says in the Constitution


e


And I suspect you'd be in a small minority also inhabited by small town police chiefs.

LOL, Sorry, a totally laughable reply. Our system of government is based on layers of responsibility and authority. Cities, counties, states and the federal government all have their domains. Each has legislative and enforcement powers. And defined control of those functions.

 

[Rich2018]

there'd be a "knockoff effect" all right...more dead law abiding citizens.

What evidence do you have for that ?

And, no.... I don't wish to disarm America. I want every law abiding citizen to have a gun..Oh, wait, looks like mission accomplished. I think pretty much all Americans are now armed.

I want everyone in America to be disarmed of privately owned guns*

*caveat: subject to previously stated exemptions.

 

[Rich2018]

Uh, no. It's the basis of my argument.

So again, why do you assume a state wide police service in Rhode Island would be of the same size as one in California ?

Our system of government is based on layers of responsibility and authority. Cities, counties, states and the federal government all have their domains. Each has legislative and enforcement powers. And defined control of those functions.

So remove the "domain" of a small town PD with a county PD around it

And our system of government does not work like that for defense and welfare does it ?

And as stated, for which you offered no counter argument, each small town independently doing its own thing is NOT a good thing and the basis of why local PDs need to be disbanded - like the Minneapolis council just voted to disband the Minneapolis PD.

 

[Waddy]

What evidence do you have for that ?




I want everyone in America to be disarmed of privately owned guns*

*caveat: subject to previously stated exemptions.

no, you don't. On another thread you wanted all joggers armed.

 

[Rich2018]

no, you don't. On another thread you wanted all joggers armed.

No I don't

I don't want anybody armed, vigilantes especially.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And where's your evidence to make this prediction?

Would you like some anecdotal evidence, since we are not yet at a stage where "factual" evidence exists in the USA...because we have not yet reached a level of "gun control" leading to active disobedience?

I don't own a gun, never have outside of various "service" requirements.

However I do know MANY people who do, usually more than one such weapon.

They would cache/hide as many as they could if restrictive gun control laws were promulgated. Hell, a few already have.

Thank you, the banning of guns will take the repeal of the 2nd amendment

A few years ago, I'd have said it was impossible...now just unlikely

We'll need all the good fortune we can get.

It would not take a "complete ban" to start this process. :no:

It would simply take sufficient steps to give the impression weapons which could be used effectively against both law enforcement AND military forces would no longer be considered "protected."

At that point I, personally, would seek to arm up by any means necessary and hide them and their ammunition until need.

In short, such acts would make both me and people I know "criminals."

 

[Rich2018]

Would you like some anecdotal evidence, since we are not yet at a stage where "factual" evidence exists in the USA...because we have not yet reached a level of "gun control" leading to active disobedience?

Two questions:

1. Would you accept contrary anecdotes ?
2. Do you accept evidence from outside the USA ?

They would cache/hide as many as they could if restrictive gun control laws were promulgated. Hell, a few already have.

So what ?

It would not take a "complete ban" to start this process.

You wouldn't have to but IMO it would be the best way to take a first step

It would simply take sufficient steps to give the impression weapons which could be used effectively against both law enforcement AND military forces would no longer be considered "protected."

I don't know how you would do that other that draw up some arbitrary, convoluted definitions that lawyers would spend countless court room hours picking hole in

At that point I, personally, would seek to arm up by any means necessary and hide them and their ammunition until need.

So what ?

You are arrested the moment you feel they're needed and you use them

In short, such acts would make both me and people I know "criminals."

Yes, and with a threat of a hefty fine and a minimum 5 year jail sentence....should reduce the number of "criminals".

 

[eohrnberger]

A bit

Except they'd be a uniformed police service (mostly) and a state bureau of investigation (like the Georgia Bureau of Investigation - GBI) would be part of it




So what ?
If the FBI is broken, then fix it

Well underway me thinks, just on the observation that Rosenstein and McCabe are busy throwing each other under the bus as hard as they can.

Surely you're not suggesting that a small torn PD doesn't "screw up" regularly and is prone to corruption and nepotism etc ?

We do, however, need a national police service. If you don't like FBI, then reform it and call it something else
I'd incorporate the DEA and ATF into it.

For a supposedly "free" country, the USA has way too many security organization.

And yet, here you are proposing yet another one, and a federal level one at that. Hmm.

 

[Rich2018]

Well underway me thinks, just on the observation that Rosenstein and McCabe are busy throwing each other under the bus as hard as they can.



And yet, here you are proposing yet another one, and a federal level one at that. Hmm.

Yes, IMO, state level and federal level police services would be more effective, more efficient and far less prone to bigotry, nepotism and corruption.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Two questions:

1. Would you accept contrary anecdotes ?

No, because I am speaking for myself, and those I know of.

We are the "exceptions" and we don't need examples of the "rule." :no:

2. Do you accept evidence from outside the USA ?

Definitely not. This because most foreign nations have different social histories, and are made up of people who accept submission to central rule.

So what ?

So THAT answers where people like myself and other's could get some weapons should gun bans go into effect. That's what.

You wouldn't have to but IMO it would be the best way to take a first step.

Waiting too long makes things harder. :shrug:

I don't know how you would do that other that draw up some arbitrary, convoluted definitions that lawyers would spend countless court room hours picking hole in.

WRONG! I would know that when I PERSONALLY decide it is time. You don't get to decide when I think it is necessary. :roll:

So what?

You are arrested the moment you feel they're needed and you use them.

LOL, if I am at that point then I am already in a state of "rebellion," in which case you can take my avatar quote to heart.

Yes, and with a threat of a hefty fine and a minimum 5 year jail sentence....should reduce the number of "criminals".

Again, I would be in an active state of rebellion. Since I have already put my life on the line in my past, doing so again in such circumstances would not trouble me in the least.

Again, I have not chosen my avatar's citation as a joke. :coffeepap:

 

[PirateMk1]

Would you like some anecdotal evidence, since we are not yet at a stage where "factual" evidence exists in the USA...because we have not yet reached a level of "gun control" leading to active disobedience?

I don't own a gun, never have outside of various "service" requirements.

However I do know MANY people who do, usually more than one such weapon.

They would cache/hide as many as they could if restrictive gun control laws were promulgated. Hell, a few already have.



It would not take a "complete ban" to start this process. :no:

It would simply take sufficient steps to give the impression weapons which could be used effectively against both law enforcement AND military forces would no longer be considered "protected."

At that point I, personally, would seek to arm up by any means necessary and hide them and their ammunition until need.

In short, such acts would make both me and people I know "criminals."

Another thing is that technology is going to pass the regulations right by. In many ways it already has.

 

[Bullseye]

So again, why do you assume a state wide police service in Rhode Island would be of the same size as one in California ?

I DON"T, how many times do I have to tell you that. I'm comparing municipalities WITHIN A STATE. That's what the discussion is; ONE humongous state police displacing county and city cops.

So remove the "domain" of a small town PD with a county PD around it

Why?

And our system of government does not work like that for defense and welfare does it ?

Red herring - defense is constitutionally a federal job.

And as stated, for which you offered no counter argument, each small town independently doing its own thing is NOT a good thing and the basis of why local PDs need to be disbanded - like the Minneapolis council just voted to disband the Minneapolis PD.

But I have countered it, you just ignore it. Layered government is a cornerstone of our system. Handle problems at the lowest level possible. We don't need the state government deciding how many parking spaces the local park has, for instance. Minneapolis city council are ****ing idiots, why should we follow their lead.

 

[Waddy]

No I don't

I don't want anybody armed, vigilantes especially.

Rich, "joggers should be armed so they can return fire should a squad of armed vigilantes run them down and accuse them of being burglars."

Try to keep your story straight.

 

[Rich2018]

Rich, "joggers should be armed so they can return fire should a squad of armed vigilantes run them down and accuse them of being burglars."

Waddy, "If the joggers interest is stealing any power tools laying around he better be armed as lawful people tend to frown on that kind of stuff."

Advocating burglars/robbers be armed...Hmmmmm
I wonder why you might prefer an armed criminal ?


Try to keep your story straight.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, IMO, state level and federal level police services would be more effective, more efficient and far less prone to bigotry, nepotism and corruption.

I think you are foolish in believing that, considering how badly an already federal law enforcement agency was politicized, and considering how poorly the federal government is run.

I think it far better to empower the local law enforcement to do as much of the needed policing as possible, taking power away from the already bloated and stupid (sometimes willfully so) one size fits all federal bureaucracy. The more local then better from my view.

 

[Rich2018]

No, because I am speaking for myself, and those I know of....

So you want me to accept yours, but refuse to accept anyone else's ?

We are the "exceptions" and we don't need examples of the "rule."

How do you know you're an "exception"
Do you know the future ?

Definitely not.

So you think it better that the USA reinvent the wheel each time and Americans have nothing to learn from other countries

How sadly parochial you are

So THAT answers where people like myself and other's could get some weapons should gun bans go into effect. That's what.

No it doesn't

It means you can hide your precious guns but can never use them

Waiting too long makes things harder.

Why would you believe that any alternative method would necessarily involve waiting ?

WRONG! I would know that when I PERSONALLY decide it is time. You don't get to decide when I think it is necessary.

???

We are talking about how to exempt guns from a total ban

Using personal opinion is NOT a way forward

... if I am at that point then I am already in a state of "rebellion," in which case you can take my avatar quote to heart.

Then go to jail willingly for at least 5 years

I somehow think that would deter most people....including you regardless of your faux bravado and avatar

Again, I would be in an active state of rebellion. Since I have already put my life on the line in my past, doing so again in such circumstances would not trouble me in the least.

Let's say I dismiss your bar room big-talk as just that.

 

[Rich2018]

I think you are foolish in believing that, considering how badly an already federal law enforcement agency was politicized, and considering how poorly the federal government is run.

Federal government is run according to the "Constitution" Let's just say they have constrainsts placed on them

I would trust a state level police service way more than I'd trust a small town PD

Do you really think you get fair and equal treatment from a small town PD ?
Seriously ???

I think it far better to empower the local law enforcement to do as much of the needed policing as possible, taking power away from the already bloated and stupid (sometimes willfully so) one size fits all federal bureaucracy. The more local then better from my view.

I think it's far better to strip local police of all their powers

If there was a state wide PD, I would prevent any officer from ever serving in his home town. Or if it was a big city, a completely different borough/district/precinct...

 

[eohrnberger]

Federal government is run according to the "Constitution" Let's just say they have constrainsts placed on them

I would trust a state level police service way more than I'd trust a small town PD

Do you really think you get fair and equal treatment from a small town PD ?
Seriously ???

I think instances of 'fair and equal treatment' from the police is statistically insignificant, as are the number of so called 'bad cops', yet very significant in impact. I don't see a federalized local policing system (and that's an oxymoron if I ever heard of one) isn't going to change that much in the least.

I think it's far better to strip local police of all their powers

If there was a state wide PD, I would prevent any officer from ever serving in his home town. Or if it was a big city, a completely different borough/district/precinct...

Apparently we differ in our opinions. :shrug:

 

[Rich2018]

I'm comparing municipalities WITHIN A STATE. That's what the discussion is; ONE humongous state police displacing county and city cops.

So we can get rid of the "one size fits all" comment....because states come in different sizes and so do areas within a state

The police service would tailor each police division to the area/population they have responsibility for

Why

To improve policing


"While Minneapolis's move to scrap its police force is unheard-of for a city of its size, it is not unprecedented.
In 2012 the city of Camden, New Jersey - then one of the most violent places in America - announced it was gutting its entire police force along with the local union.
In an attempt at a do-over, it moved to a cheaper but larger county force with the concept of 'community policing' at its core.
Instead of being sent out to make arrests, officers went out in ice cream trucks and hosted barbecues in an attempt to connect with locals.
Officers were given 'deescalation' training, body cameras, and a strict new code on what constitutes 'reasonable' force - including that all other options must be exhausted before an officer can draw a weapon.
The new rules are requirements, not simply guidelines, with officers compelled to act if they see another officer breaching the guide. The department can fire any officer found to be in breach.
Since then, the city's murder rate has dropped by almost 50 per cent while excessive force complaints have dropped by 94 per cent.
As protests sprung up across the nation in response to George Floyd's death, officers in Camden asked to join in - with white police chief Joseph Wysocki pictured holding a banner reading 'marching in solidarity' alongside black activists. "


Minneapolis mayor balks at plans to 'abolish' the police department | Daily Mail Online

defense is constitutionally a federal job.

So what ?

Would it be better if the Constitution were changed to allow each state or even each town to organize its own army ?

But I have countered it, you just ignore it. Layered government is a cornerstone of our system.

So what ?

It's not doing a great job right now, local PDs are rotten to the core and need replacing entirely, and not just with a copy of it

Handle problems at the lowest level possible.

If the problem is local sure, let the police division/precinct with responsibility for that area handle it

But they're not antonymous, they must act in accordance to state/federal law and not make up one rule for their small town and another for the rest of the country

Btw, do you have any police experience ?

We don't need the state government deciding how many parking spaces the local park has, for instance....

No, that's a local responsibility

But equally we don't need a small town PD deciding to not charge a gun owner for shooting a fleeing shoplifter in order to punish him
Or deciding that a local bar owner thinking it's OK to exclude black people

Minneapolis city council are ****ing idiots, why should we follow their lead.

Because they just could be the catalyst that pulls the whole rotten edifice, of militarized US policing, down like a wrecking ball.