Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 43 of 44
Quote:Anyone who places faith in an institution needs to be institutionalized.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I believe the last thing anyone should have is faith in an institution. Institutions do not deserve our faith. They require our scepticism. Law is such an institution. Democracy is such an institution. Government itself is such an institution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Tasers
When these were first issued to police, I about hit the roof because they were just handed out without proper controls and oversight, and classed as a NON-lethal rather than LESS-lethal weapon, on the assumption that they would not be abused...
*rolls eyes*(1)
Stuffing THAT genie back in the bottle took far more effort and resources than it woulda had they not been so stupid in the first place, and still abuses continue, although increased public scrutiny and accountability measures are putting paid to that, ever so slowly.
That said, there *IS* a place for them in the force continuum, something brought all too clear in an unfortunate incident in New York, when some guy shot his co-worker and then brandished at the police in an obvious (in hindsight) effort at suicide-by-cop, to which they responded by blazing away and wounding nine bystanders - this also serves to highlight why blazing away at an active shooter is a VERY BAD IDEA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-
caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
And here's the thing, a bullet may or may not STOP someone, even a fatal wound can take up to minutes to drop somebody, minutes during which they're still shooting back - what was once known as "the dead mans ten", historically.
In light of this, while less-lethal, a taser hit will generally drop the target all but instantly.
My suspicions in regard to why they're not used in situations they SHOULD be, whilst abused in cases that they shouldn't, mostly revolve around failures of training and a toxic mentality amongst many police forces - what I call the beehive effect.
Another case in Ohio demonstrates what I mean by this: hearing something that sounded like a gunshot, the police in question believed they were being shot at by some nearby individuals, while those individuals believed THEY were being shot at by the police and ran away - resulting in a high speed chase during which 137 shots were fired by the officers who ignored more than one order to break off the chase, resulting in the death of two individuals who, while not exactly what you'd call "good people", were probably not guilty of anything.
http://www.wral.com/137-police-shots-2-dead-many-questions-in-ohio/118
85052/
There's a certain almost gang-like mentality involved here, where when police feel threatened they go far beyond the necessary force continuum straight into lethal retaliation, like a kicked beehive.
So one possibility regarding the failure to deploy Tasers in situations where they are warranted, is a combination of poor/inadequate training, compounded by a strong desire to see the "perp" dead.
(aka he-shot-at-me-imma-KILL-this-mofo!)
But the fact remains that we have a less-lethal option which will stop a shooter instantly, versus a more-lethal option which will not, and we really have to rethink our responses to the situation in light of this - is it more important to stop them, or see them dead ?
They do make civilian tasers mind you, and Michigan has recently changed the laws to allow their use after learning that the police were technically in violation of the law for some time as it made no exception for them - so now that option exists privately as well.
It's certainly something that some thought and effort should be invested in, cause an active shooter in a crowded area is a situation where a Taser is the best option, and I've been in discussion with some of our sister security companies about it, cause we don't do most of the places where that situation would be likely.
-Frem
(1) Oh yes, and I was called paranoid and accused of overreacting then, too.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
you and others have PRETENDED to be rational
That's where you leave me. You're calling me a liar again. That leaves no basis for communication. I will say again, I agree to disagree that the government will ever confiscate EVERYONE's guns. Beyond that, I'm not even going to try anymore. If you can't be civil, it's not worth it.
Cav:Quote:
I do, fundamentally, believe that passing laws at this point will do nothing to curb mass murder in this country
With that I fully agree. Over time, however, I think it would.Quote:
we need to greatly reduce their numbers in this country
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is proposing anything but stopping the INCREASE of a certain kind of gun, nothing more. Even that won't pass, as is evident by the thinking right here, alone. When you add in the power and money of the gun lobby and NRA, I'm almost sure nothing will happen.
I understand much better your position, and in many ways I agree with it.
And I think there I will give up. It remains my belief that automatic and semi-automatic guns, as well as magazines which make it possible to murder large numbers of people quickly, are weapons of war and have no business within a society already as screwed up as ours. It seems to me obvious that attempting to debate this point has been useless for nine pages, and will probably go on doing so if those of us who feel that way continue trying to make our point. Thus I will try and avoid this thread, and as many of the other gun threads as are going currently, in future.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK apologies for dumping on you, Cav. I had little time to post, and was very rude in what I said.
I'll try to reply in a more respectful manner to the points I disagreed with.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, I don't understand why people persist in believing that there's a political solution to the problem of mass murder.
I don't see it as political, but legal. I don't see them as the same things. People who decry this becoming a 'political issue' just don't want to look at solutions they don't like, in my view.
Quote:
I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard
Or maybe others see solutions that you don't agree with. I don't think people who advocate changing gun laws have any less sense of reality than you, really?
Quote:
"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"
No one sane believes this, and it just mocks people who support changes to gun laws.
Quote:
That's the "or else" kind of thinking our mutual Frem is talking about. Laws are the government's "or else!" And guns are the individual's "Yeah, make me!" They don't guarantee freedom, they're just the individual's last defense against freedom being taken away. They give the individual's defiance just a little "oomph." Sure, when the shit hits the fan the individual will lose that fight, but not before giving the government a bloody nose. And historically, it's amazing how individual bullies and collective bullies (i.e.: governments) will change their tactics to avoid that bloody nose.
I have nothing to say about this statement.
Quote:
You'll notice that it's only true "gunbunnies" like Wulf who bloviate about BEING THE ONE TRUE PATRIOT WHAT PUTS THAT DOG DOWN 'CAUSE I AIN'T AFEARED O' NO GUNS! RAWR! Neither Frem nor Anthony cherish such illusions. They just don't want to be disarmed when and if the government turns on 'em. Is that so hard to understand?
It's not so hard to understand, but given the US government has the most powerful military in the world at its disposal, it appears to be a fantasy.
Quote:
Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.
I disagree. I explained why in my offensive reply post.
Quote:
Sometimes they lead social changes, sometimes they follow it, but for every law passed there are repercussions, sometimes for good and sometimes not. I can think of numerous laws of the top of my head that have had far reaching consequences on marriage, on ownership of property by women, on giving women the vote, on abolishing slavery, have enabled and ended segregation, prevented discrimination on the basis of race and gender, prevented employers from using child labour, porviding the basis of free speech, freedom of dissent and indeed your own constitution.
Your idea that there is no law that can affect any situation in society ludicrously ignores the history of law making.
Quote:
Laws exist--governments exist--to maintain the status quo. That's what an "ordered society" is: a society that stays the same. How pathetic is that? An institution whose sole purpose is to make people think that without it they wouldn't be doing what they think they oughta do anyway. Nobody ever needed a government to enforce majority rule.
I can't see any evidence to back this statement. Is our society the same as 100 years ago? Government and laws must be doing a lousy job, because change is rampant.
Quote:
But what all of us here want is social change. Social evolution. You want it, I want it, and Frem and Anthony both want it. And how do we get iNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for that, Magons. I really appreciate you taking the time to unpack your thoughts for me here.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
OK apologies for dumping on you, Cav. I had little time to post, and was very rude in what I said.
I'll try to reply in a more respectful manner to the points I disagreed with.
Quote:Sorry, too much listening to the Police in my youth: "There is no political solution/To our troubled evolution..." Jeez god, I assure you I am as sick as you of this idea that people who want gun control are "politicizing" a tragedy. I meant "legal," absolutely. Legal solution = write a law and a problem goes away.Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, I don't understand why people persist in believing that there's a political solution to the problem of mass murder.
I don't see it as political, but legal. I don't see them as the same things. People who decry this becoming a 'political issue' just don't want to look at solutions they don't like, in my view.
Quote:Ouch. This is Geezer's argument: you're just saying it's bad because you don't agree with it. It's a sophistic tautology. Of course I don't agree with the solutions I don't think will work. I think people who believe that changing gun laws will reduce the number of mass murders in this country are not dealing with the problem realistically. Sure, restricting guns may curb gun violence in general, but mass murders are so rare, throwing laws at the problem is kinda like relying upon the butterfly effect to control the weather.Quote:
I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard
Or maybe others see solutions that you don't agree with. I don't think people who advocate changing gun laws have any less sense of reality than you, really?
Quote:No, it mocks people who think that changing gun laws is gonna prevent another Sandy Hook. Good luck with that.Quote:
"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"
No one sane believes this, and it just mocks people who support changes to gun laws.
Quote:So weird. I thought I clarified this in my previous post. I never said "there is no law that can affect any situation." This is very troubling and kinda instantly exhausting 'cause it suggests that you think I'm a lunatic on this subject. I said, and you quoted: "Laws never BRING ABOUT social change...Laws always come VERY LATE TO THAT PROCESS."Quote:
Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.
Your idea that there is no law that can affect any situation in society ludicrously ignores the history of law making.
Laws don't come first. They don't begin the process of social change. What I see with the gun craziness in this country is that we need social change. Laws are not the best way to begin. Because they are too sweeping and general and if we enact them before we understand the problem, may have no positive affect on the problem they were intended to address. My exemplum: TSA workers groping children. It's pure theatre, symbolic, and in no way reduce the threat of terrorism and creates instead a crisis of its own in human rights.
Once the problem is clearer and society is better informed, then laws make perfect sense. Trying to come up with the right gun laws to reduce the possibility of mass murders in kindergartens is kinda like pushing for gay marriage immediately after the slaying of Harvey Milk in 1978. Legalizing gay marriage would be a great thing to occur at any point in history, but the likelihood of it having the desired result of creating mo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay long post. Short time to respond.
But I just wanted to clarify on one point.
Quote:
So weird. I thought I clarified this in my previous post. I never said "there is no law that can affect any situation." This is very troubling and kinda instantly exhausting 'cause it suggests that you think I'm a lunatic on this subject. I said, and you quoted: "Laws never BRING ABOUT social change...Laws always come VERY LATE TO THAT PROCESS."
Laws don't come first. They don't begin the process of social change. What I see with the gun craziness in this country is that we need social change. Laws are not the best way to begin. Because they are too sweeping and general and if we enact them before we understand the problem, may have no positive affect on the problem they were intended to address.
And I guess you haven't understood that I disagree with you on this. Laws don't necessarily happen at the end of change, when everyone is ready for it.
People who want to change gun laws are no different to anyone who lobbied for any social changes. Think about some of the dramatic areas of change. If, as you state *should* happen, everyone was completely on board with ending segregation, it may have been years before it actually happened, or never.
Seeking changes to laws, whether they be about marriage, discimination or guns is part of social change. And there will always be some people who oppose those laws, who don't want change. Would you have argued that ending segregation should not have happened because many opposed it? Would you have said that changing the law would have had no impact in that situation?
I don't understand how you think some evolution will happen without it. And in the meantime while you wait for sweeping and dramatic changes without laws to descend on the US (still not explaining how that will happen) very disturbed, angry people will have access to weapons considered in most places in the world to not have any place in civilised society, enabling them to act out their sick fantasies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Without actually reading everything here, I think part uv the problem iz theze mega posts. People tend to scan stuff if its too long.
Brevity iz the essense uv wit.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MAGONS, HKCAV- I think the most significant example of laws being well in advance of society are our civil rights laws. A lot of people weren't ready for the emancipation, when it happened. They weren't ready for civil rights, and non-discrimination either, when THEY happened.... heck, Federal soldiers were needed so that black kids could go to a "white" school.
They STILL aren't ready... it's not like discrimination is a thing of the past. But we no longer have slavery, and a lot of progress has been made. The next generation is far less prejudiced than I.
When you institute laws, it may takes five generations to follow, but as long as the rewards and punishments remain consistent, follow they will.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAGONS, HKCAV- I think the most significant example of laws being well in advance of society are our civil rights laws. A lot of people weren't ready for the emancipation, when it happened. They weren't ready for civil rights, and non-discrimination either, when THEY happened.... heck, Federal soldiers were needed so that black kids could go to a "white" school.
They STILL aren't ready... it's not like discrimination is a thing of the past. But we no longer have slavery, and a lot of progress has been made. The next generation is far less prejudiced than I.
When you institute laws, it may takes five generations to follow, but as long as the rewards and punishments remain consistent, follow they will.
^ Yup, what I have been trying to say but more articulately.
Yes, Jo the long posts can be hard to follow and you can mistake intent in some of the detail.
Quote:
YES! EXACTLY! Governments always are doing a lousy job. That's why my position is not one of hopelessness. Change happens all the time and is happening at ever accelerating rates throughout the world despite entrenched power ALWAYS opposing it. And, over all, though it is not perfectly linear and progressive in every given place and time, the shift from more authoritarian power to more individual power is what we see unfolding historically. We, as a species, are growing up and I'm not seeing laws as the engine of that change. People have to want change, they have to be making change, before they're gonna make laws that reflect the changes they want in a meaningful way.
I don't think governments necessarily try to stifle that change, I just think they struggle sometimes to keep up. And how do you successfully govern such complex societies?
Even my workplace, which is small at 80 odd staff (and I mean odd ;) ) struggles to keep abreast of changes, in demographics, legislation, competitive environment, yes and social changes. It's hard and costly to keep implementing changes. But guess what works best, when you LEAD changes. When you actually don't just follow on in a panicky way, back and forward peddling in the way you have described Obama on gay marriage.
Don't get me wrong, I have never believed that any law will 100% prevent an atrocity like the recent school shooting from happening again, but I do believe less guns in circulation will equal less shootings.
Society will never be perfect. No one has ever claimed that on these boards as far as I can see. No one has said there is one single answer, and that a number of things cannot happen at the same time.
As far as I can make out from these threads, some of the sensible solutions include
1. Some restrictions of gun ownership
2. Better provisions for treating people with mental health problems
3. Widespread societal changes that involve increasing empathy in the population
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ideally, all three of these things would be happening and the connection between these three issues would be explicit. I would be very happy to see, as cheesy as they might be, little "The More You Know" style PSA's about empathy and violence and the downside of spending all day fantasizing about murder and such. I really think gun literacy requirements for ownership would be great if they could be implemented sensibly. Wholist solutions are always the best, because they indicate a real and community oriented commitment to change. I get very frustrated when people focus too much on a single solution that's supposed to "fix" such complex problems.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
1. Some restrictions of gun ownership
2. Better provisions for treating people with mental health problems
3. Widespread societal changes that involve increasing empathy in the population
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME