America 'Has Become a War Zone'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America 'Has Become a War Zone'

Posted by Unknown on Monday June 9, 2014 @12:03PM from the local-weed-dealer-mines-front-yard dept.

An anonymous reader writes, quoting Business Insider: "Eight different law enforcement agencies in Indiana have purchased massive Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAP) that were formerly used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mark Alesia reports for the Indy Star. Pulaski County, home to 13,124 people, is one of the counties that have purchased an 55,000 pound, six-wheeled patrol vehicles, from military surplus. When asked to justify the purchase of a former military vehicle, Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer told the Indy Star: "The United States of America has become a war zone."'

125 of 875 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

War of government against people? by gweihir · 2014-06-09 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

If law enforcement needs this type of equipment, then it has long abandoned any pretense of serving the people and has instead reverted to its original purpose of fighting the people for those in power.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Re:War of government against people? by gandhi_2 · 2014-06-09 12:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  the police don't actually have to protect the citizens.
  this is worth watching.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  it is also worth noting that the US is safer now than ever before.
  on the other hand, the real deal is there are a surplus of military equipment that can be useful in all kinds of scenarios. the high clearance of an RG33 would be good in a flood, and good for active-shooter scenarios. might as well snap them up if the price is good.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
2. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 12:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When you're fighting violent uneducated animals you need this equipment. This documentary covers the problem fairly well: http://www.youtube.com/v/z5MGJ87hPGw
3. Re:War of government against people? by rmdingler · 2014-06-09 12:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  OR
  The Police are the civil servant equivalent of the 40ish divorced guy driving a Corvette.
  Big weapons? Tim Taylor grunt...we have big weapons.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
4. Re:War of government against people? by Nidi62 · 2014-06-09 12:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  OR
  The Police are the civil servant equivalent of the 40ish divorced guy driving a Corvette.
  Big weapons? Tim Taylor grunt...we have big weapons.
  Pretty much this. Their thought process is "so, what cool shit can we spend taxpayer money on that we couldn't normally get?". Now, I have no problem with a large or metropolitan police force buying a few surplus M-4s (even though, as police, they have access to better, new weapons for the same price), comm gear, or load-bearing harnesses to equip their SWAT team. But the average beat cop on traffic duty doesn't need a surplus M-4 sitting in his trunk. And they don't need a mine resistant vehicle. And if a major police force doesn't need one, a county sheriff certainly doesn't. I don't think you need an MRAP to do a raid on a methlab, or operate speed traps on that road where you randomly drop the speed limit 20mph so you can get ticket revenue to pay for your toys. If you are really concerned about officer safety in SWAT situations then buy one of these.
  I remember once, about 3 years ago, I was officiating a high school football game on theoutskirts of a major metro area. On the sidelines were a couple local sheriff deputies watching the game and (I am assuming) working security for the game. One of them had to be a good 280lbs (and not muscle) loaded out in a tactical vest and harness, gloves, and sunglasses. He just wanted to look bad-ass (but looked like an idiot).
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
5. Re:War of government against people? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-09 12:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is the most relevant point:
  
  the US is safer now than ever before.
  And not just a little. FAR safer. Violent crime is less than half what it was 20 years ago. And even less compared to 30 years ago.
  
  The only "increasing" violence is news-media propaganda. Because chicks hatching on the farm does not sell news.
  
  In fact, some recent studies have concluded that it was news media coverage, and not guns, which led to copy-cat "mass" shootings on college and other school campuses. (But even so, and even though they are splashed all over the news, THOSE are way down, too, compared to 2-3 decades ago.)
  
  American does not have "increasing" internal violence. It has decreasing violence.
  
  And during the same period, it is interesting to not, per-capita gun ownership in the U.S. has gone steadily up. And also during that same period, concealed-carry laws have become much more common.
  
  Statistics do not prove cause-and-effect. But a negative correlation can DISprove cause-and-effect.
  
  We have more guns. (Per person!) According to our own government's statistics. Yet we have less violent crime. This is a direct, indisputable DISproof of the idea that "more guns equals more crime".
  
  [Sources: U.S. DOJ, and for more recent years: U.S. Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics]
6. Re:War of government against people? by mythosaz · 2014-06-09 12:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm pro-gun (or at least anti gun restriction), but it's hardly indisputable disproof.
  Guns may be contributing to violent crime; other factors may just be having a greater impact the other way.
  It's not my personal belief, but the logic just isn't there for your "indisputable" fact.
7. Re:War of government against people? by Sir+Holo · 2014-06-09 12:54 · Score: 2
  
  If law enforcement needs this type of equipment, then it has long abandoned any pretense of serving the people and has instead reverted to its original purpose of fighting the people for those in power.
  Indeed. "To protect and to serve..." has been perverted into "To protect (ourselves) and to serve (those in power)..."
8. Re:War of government against people? by s.petry · 2014-06-09 13:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, I certainly agree with most of your points (I normally do) but have to debate one particular omission from yours and GPs comments. Violence by Police departments has escalated drastically in the same time as criminal violence has gone down. Police brutality is close to a daily occurrence today, and not just the cops manhandling a suspected felon but outright killing people.
  Sure, some of this happened in the past but not to the extremes we are seeing today.
  This has a potentially rubber banding effect on society. Oppressed people surely don't take the same chances as a "Free" public, bottled up it becomes rather explosive.
  When police are increasingly violent I have more concerns about them receiving this type of equipment. They surely don't need an MRAP for stopping people speeding on the freeway, so why have this type of gear?
  Since this is not a new phenomenon (militarizing police that is) I have done a bit of homework. The first reason for them to gear up this way is that DHS is selling us back equipment that the military purchased for Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a boost to the MIC, and a nice way to double tax us for the same equipment. Yes, DHS sells them for less money but still are selling them to local police. The next reason is obviously a Rambo effect, where cops think they are "cool" in this type of gear. Lastly, and more of a concern than the two previous is that a majority of police training today is geared toward attacking the public. There have been ample leaks from DHS training materials showing this to be true. Military and Law Enforcement agencies are using material claiming that "Patriots" and "Tea Party" type groups are potential terrorists.
  There are many good links to find in this page here, pay special attention to the retired Marine Colonel in the 2nd video. Enjoy.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
9. Re:War of government against people? by fche · 2014-06-09 13:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not just that. A key quote from TFA: "My job is to make sure my employees go home safe." Police leadership whose priority is on their own safety is more likely to view the populace as a problem instead of as the recipient of service. They are more likely to do no-knock night-time raids ... because if it saves just one [police] life, sure it's worth burning that baby with a flash-bang.
10. Re:War of government against people? by overshoot · 2014-06-09 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  might as well snap them up if the price is good.
  And as Joe Arpaio has so beautifully demonstrated, once you've bought a toy like that, you have to find a use for it. Even if it's busting into a chicken coop with a light tank.
  
  --
  Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
11. Re:War of government against people? by dala1 · 2014-06-09 13:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A negative correlation does not disprove causation any more than a positive one proves it. To see why, consider a simpler example: Town A has 5 police per thousand people, and 3 crimes reported per thousand people every day. The next year, they increase the number of police to 7 per thousand people, but crime rates go up to 5 crimes reported per day.
  Despite the negative correlation, this doesn't disprove the idea that having a greater police presence reduces crime. It could be that poverty rates went up due to recession, resulting in more crime and prompting politicians to increase police funding. It could be that the police are corrupt or inept, or that legislation changed such that committing crime is more profitable or less risky. There could be any number of explanations for that data that don't require causation.
12. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 13:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In fact, some recent studies have concluded that it was news media coverage, and not guns, which led to copy-cat "mass" shootings on college and other school campuses.
  Nobody ever said guns lead to mass shootings, they are the means. You dont need fully automatic assault weapons, you just want them in fact no mass shooting has every been prevented by a private citizen who was coincidentally carrying an assault weapon and happened upon a mass shooter. Yes the NRA likes this fantasy and idiots buy into it to justify feeling like a big man carrying a big gun! And everybody likes to feel that if they had a big gun then they could stop anybody else that had a big gun.
  More to the point is the ignorance of the part of the constitution regarding the "well regulated militia", but you dont want regulation and there is no well regulated militia at all. Same old braindead hicks only want to obey the bits of the constitution they like. And with the corruption of Congress and the overreach of the NSA why do these people still do nothing about it? The whole point is to have the ability to overthrow an oppressive government and it is pretty damn oppressive right now.
  Which leads to another retarded issue with the 2nd amendment: You're a complete fucking idiot if you think your well regulated militia (which you ignore anyway) armed with assault weapons is any match for the government's military-spec hardware. Just another stupid attempt to justify your want for guns, saying you need them in case you have to take on the military is just another example of the inbred idiocy of some of the US population.
13. Re:War of government against people? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-09 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm pro-gun (or at least anti gun restriction), but it's hardly indisputable disproof.
  Yes, it is. Leaving guns aside, it's the way logic and statistics work together.
  
  A correlation (we see lots of accidents involving cell phones, for example) does not imply cause-and-effect. There is often some outside factor (or even many factors) that influence the things correlated. A classic example, from Darrell Huff's "How To Lie With Statistics" is: the salary of Protestant ministers in the U.S. is strongly correlated with price of rum in Jamaica.
  
  Does one cause the other? Of course not. The more likely answer is that general inflation (an outside factor) has affected both of them similarly.
  
  But while a correlation does not prove cause-and-effect, a lack of correlation -- or more properly, a negative correlation -- can DISprove cause-and-effect. Example: something -- all evidence points to one animal -- has been killing your chickens. You suspect the neighbor's dog. So you start keeping tabs on when the dog is let out, and when it is in the house. It turns out, after examination, that whatever it is has been killing your chickens when the dog was locked up in the house. There is no dispute... it is indisputable that the dog wasn't there when the chickens died. This negative correlation between the dog being out and dead chickens has DISproved your theory that the dog was killing the chickens.
  
  It gets a bit more complicated when the numbers go up but the same principle still holds. If your theory is that X causes Y, and you find a negative correlation, for example X goes up while Y goes down, you have DISproved that X causes Y. Otherwise, barring other outside influences, you would have (no dispute) observed that Y went up as X went up. Anything else contradicts your theory.
  
  And in the gun-control debate, we have in fact had ample time and opportunity to control for other factors. And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation. Yet even so, as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up, Y (violent crime of all sorts) has continued to go down. Therefore: X does not cause Y. Q.E.D.
  
  There has been only ONE societal factor that has been found to satisfactorily correlate with the reduction in crime (see the movie Freakonomics, and that has been widely disputed.
  
  Lacking any other evidence of outside factors, and even allowing for the one that (maybe) was found, we are still left with the simple mathematical fact that in the U.S., prevalence of gun ownership DOES NOT cause crime.
  
  It isn't an opinion. It's as scientific as it gets.
14. Re:War of government against people? by sycodon · 2014-06-09 13:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Feds used one when they burned some 50 women and children to death in Waco.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
15. Re:War of government against people? by ComputersKai · 2014-06-09 13:39 · Score: 2
  
  Unless there's an all-out drug war where people are getting killed daily, like in Mexico, or some sort of civil war like in Somalia, why do the police need military vehicles.
16. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 13:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is where the USA gets it WRONG.
  Its the attitude which is the problem, not the gun.
  In the USA it is acceptable to buy a gun with the intent to use it to kill someone (self defence, stand your ground, what ever you call it)
  and the large number of hand guns posed for this purpose makes the attitude clear, " It is OK to kill people"
  Other countries who have large numbers of guns dont have this attitude, in fact if authorities even think you want a gun for "self defence" you will be denied ownership and the use of a gun "for self defence" can see you charged with murder/man slaughter, because the idea of killing another human being is considered abhorrent .
  Hence in these countries gun crime is lower, murder rates are lower and mass murder is pretty much unheard of.
  The US population is paranoid, delusional, and frightened.
  Freedom is not expressed by ones ability of own a gun and be able to shoot someone (in defence or what ever),
  it is not needing one, knowing you are safe with your family, neighbours, fellow citizens.
17. Re:War of government against people? by Runaway1956 · 2014-06-09 13:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Exceptionally good example of logic.
  Call me less disciplined, but I am convinced that increased gun ownership actually causes crime to go down. Strict rules of cause and effect be damned - empirical evidence weighs in on my side. Time and again, when cities and states make gun laws stricter, crime increases. And, repeatedly, when gun laws are relaxed, there is a short initial period of increased violence, followed by a decidedly downward trend in crime.
  Many criminals are just plain stupid, but not all. The criminal who is not outright stupid understands the risk of assaulting an armed citizen. Like any corporate shark, the common criminal is going to minimize his risks whenever possible. If he's pretty sure that 50% or more of his potential victims are armed, he is going to get very choosy about which victims to hit. Heck, even stupid people seldom WANT to be shot!
  Further, the most dangerous cities to live in today, are precisely those cities with the strictest gun control.
  The preponderence of evidence is enough for me.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
18. Re:War of government against people? by Nidi62 · 2014-06-09 13:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How about pay raises. It's a crime what they pay police officers. They practically guarantee corruption. I don't see how those guys live on what they pay which explains why they're always moonlighting at 2nd and 3rd jobs.
  In Atlanta I would have gone in making $45,000 a year base pay had I gotten a job with APD (I have a graduate degree). The job I do right now I am making $27000 a year and tops out around $50,000 a year. Yeah, it sure is a crime how little they pay police officers.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
19. Re:War of government against people? by Arker · 2014-06-09 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your logic is also impeccable! I would love to hear someone dispute this with logic. That I would know how to deal with. No one does that. They only dispute it with emotion, and with blind assertion, and refuse to believe it, but they can give me no rational reason to follow them. Now sometimes it's more concrete. Sometimes you know the crackhead idiot down the road has wanted nothing more than to beat you to death with a blunt object for over a year, but will never get the stones up to try it, solely because he knows your family are gun people and he figures there's a good chance that you kill him if he tries. Sometimes, you know. The rest of the time, you dont know, but either way, it helps society in general, by lowering the crime rate, without doing anything, simply as an intimidation factor. You see it even more clearly in the crime statistics when you break it down by type of crime and area. Rural areas have major economic problems that can definitely see some crime. But in areas where the typical household has what our pseudoliberal press would describe as an 'armory' the types of crimes committed are different. You see very few crimes that risk confrontation. People will sneak in and rob you when they are sure you are gone, but home invasions, muggings, etc are still unheard of. Old Grandad sleeping with a 12 gauge full of 00 next to his bed is not something the typical criminal wants to take any risks of dealing with.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
20. Re:War of government against people? by chihowa · 2014-06-09 14:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I got pulled over for speeding through a notorious speed trap in a little town with 400 residents and the cop walked to up me with no less than four 30 round magazines for his M4 strapped to his belt. There is quite literally no crime in this town besides people speeding on the stretch of highway that runs through it and he feels he must have immediate access to 150 rounds for a rifle. The mind boggles.
  I couldn't help but actually laugh out loud at him when he waddled up to the window (which didn't help my suave talk-myself-out-of-the-ticket routine at all). It was almost comic in an over the top disturbing way.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
21. Re:War of government against people? by knightghost · 2014-06-09 14:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Therefore strict gun laws = fewer mass shootings, not no mass shootings.
  No. Canada has a massive welfare system funded by their natural resource exploitation. They provide for mental health. The USA doesn't. There are a multitude of other cultural factors such as Canada being formed for Safety while the USA was formed for Opportunity, etc etc.
22. Re:War of government against people? by viperidaenz · 2014-06-09 14:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  USA is still pretty shit with a homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000.
  It's second-equal with Chile, beaten only by Mexico in the OECD countries.
  The unsolved murder rate is pretty shit too.
23. Re:War of government against people? by jedidiah · 2014-06-09 14:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ready access to guns may not suppress violent crime but ratcheting up the gun laws certainly seems to do nothing to stem the tide. Assuming that gun laws are a reactionary, knee-jerk response to high levels of gun crime, the results don't seem very promising.
  Perhaps something else is actually going on and fixating on guns is an easy way to avoid solving the real problem which is really hard and will make liberal busybodies squirm.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
24. Re:War of government against people? by stoploss · 2014-06-09 14:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a crime what they pay police officers. They practically guarantee corruption.
  I agree, but for the opposite reason you purport. In my locale, we have cops retiring on full pension in their 40's. Furthermore, until a few years ago, the cops were all "spiking" their pensions so they were pulling down $100+k/year pensions (pension pay was based on the last 18 months of income better retirement, and they all loaded up on scads of overtime during their leadup to retirement). Actuarially, they are going to live another 30+ years while drawing these $100+k/year pensions. Of course, they will immediately launch into a second career after retiring in their 40's, so their income is actually the full pension plus their new career.
  That's certainly a "living wage" *cough*.
  The fire and police unions are driving my city into a race to the bottom. We are half a billion dollars in the hole for the pension fund thanks to these people.
  The problem is that the police/fire unions have served as "kingmakers" for the mayoral elections for the past few decades. It's no wonder their contracts have gotten "recommended" enhancements by the mayors. We finally broke the back of the union kingmakers in last year's election... a candidate they opposed won, on a platform that included bringing the unions to heel. Hopefully we can claw back the criminal amounts we are paying these people.
25. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 14:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not the same anonymous coward, but you're wrong, and apparently your professors and textbooks are wrong too (or more likely, you misunderstood them).
  Simple thought experiment: Suppose crime is going down at rate x due to some social factor, and going up at rate y due to more guns. If x > y then crime is going down as number of guns goes up.
  Different topic, but you are the batshit craziest poster on Slashdot. It's clear there's no conspiracy theory too stupid for you to embrace. The thought that you are also a gun lover frightens me. I suspect that there are legitimate mental health reasons that you should never own a gun.
26. Re:War of government against people? by wagnerrp · 2014-06-09 14:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Town A has 5 police per thousand people, and 3 crimes reported per thousand people every day. The next year, they increase the number of police to 7 per thousand people, but crime rates go up to 5 crimes reported per day. Despite the negative correlation, this doesn't disprove the idea that having a greater police presence reduces crime.
  Ahem... I hate to have to tell you this, but yes it did. The simple fact is: you had greater police presence, but crime went up. Your hypothesis has been disproved.
  In an uncontrolled study, it disproves nothing. The data could be a result of gun proliferation reducing crime. The data could just as well be a result of gun proliferation increasing crime, only for those crime levels to be affected more strongly downwards by some other independent cause. You can't simply plot a bunch of statistics and call it a day. You have to exhaustively search through a large enough data set to definitively isolate that single variable amongst all others.
  If you find "stop, drop, and roll" ineffective while someone is pouring gasoline on you, you haven't disproven the technique, you're merely found one situation in which other factors are overriding it.
27. Re:War of government against people? by jedidiah · 2014-06-09 14:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is nothing wrong with the attitude.
  There should be a place that a man and his family don't have to retreat from. This what makes you a man rather than a peasant. This is what makes you something other than property.
  The idea that you aren't allowed to defend your family is what is really abhorent here.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
28. Re:War of government against people? by jedidiah · 2014-06-09 14:28 · Score: 2
  
  > Read the article. It's for SWAT teams not every day police. These are needed to stop the occasional crazies who shoot up places, not a conspiracy by the man to persecute slashdotters.
  A competent marksman and a good bolt action rifle is all you need to deal with such a crazy.
  You see, all of the reasons that can be dreamt up to take guns away from civilians can be applied equally well to civilians that wear a badge.
  The convenience factor of an AR-15 is useful in a number of ways but not strictly necessary.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
29. Re:War of government against people? by pepty · 2014-06-09 14:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Canada?
  Is that the country with strict gun laws that just had a mass shooting where the killer was at large for several days?
  But no, such an event in a country with strict gun laws doesn't fit the narrative you want to hear, now does it?
  Canada? The country with 1/4 the firearm related death rate and 1/7 the firearm related homicide rate as the USA? Is that the narrative you were looking for? Obviously they need more guns up there for self defense against mass killers.
30. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 14:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1. It is entirely possible to have a scenario where some factor is driving crime down faster than gun ownership is driving it up. The fact that it hasn't been found is about as important to this discussion as the continuing problems reconciling quantum gravity with general relativity is important to launching a rocket to the moon. (Hint, it isn't)
  2. The fact that Northern Europe has less gun ownership and less crime than the USA implies that this factor that drives crime more than gun ownership does in fact exist.
  3. By your logic, you have also solved NP != P. I mean, try as we might, we haven't found ANY P-time solutions for an NP problem, and we've had ample time to find one, so that's good enough for a rigorous proof right? No?
  Oh, and btw, Mr. I've Taken Lots of Logic and Statistic classes, an appeal to authority? Really? Good lord.
31. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 14:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Police shootings are not violent crime. The prisons are full. The sooner local government bands of thugs can wipe out a city block at a time, the sooner the National fascists can back to the job of not caring. You Americans really deserve this. You have your armies acting like police and your police acting like armies. How is THAT for a relevant point?
32. Re:War of government against people? by dala1 · 2014-06-09 14:42 · Score: 2
  
  Let's try a simpler example.
  Students in a chemistry class study an average of 6 hours for a test and get a C for their class average. The next week, the same student study an average of 1 hour for their Interpretive Dance class and average an A..
  Despite the negative correlation, this doesn't disprove the idea that studying improves grades. Most likely, grades are positively correlated to studying but negatively correlated to class difficulty.
33. Re: War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 14:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Self defense is a human right (see Locke). Any government that tries to take that right away from you needs to be removed from power.
34. Re:War of government against people? by Hategrin · 2014-06-09 14:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  According to this Ad Absurdum logic, dropping sand-bags in an at-risk hurricane zone actually causes the hurricane. Ever see hurricanes hit where NOBODY is getting prepared? No? Well, there you go, responding to a hurricane caused that hurricane, just like responding to a flux in gun violence caused that flux in gun violence.
  PS: I don't advocate the removal of any of our constitutional rights, just the abandonment of shitty logic. Don't look so surprised, of course your regurgitated politically rhetoric is going to contain a dozen logical fallacies, it was drummed up to incite argument, not to dig into the root causes, that might *ghasp* bring closure to the argument and no politician wants that.
35. Re:War of government against people? by Shadowmist · 2014-06-09 14:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Lastly, and more of a concern than the two previous is that a majority of police training today is geared toward attacking the public. There have been ample leaks from DHS training materials showing this to be true. Military and Law Enforcement agencies are using material claiming that "Patriots" and "Tea Party" type groups are potential terrorists.
  This is not an unfounded concern. America has had periods where every now and then it became fashionable for whackos to gather in para-military groups put together frequently in reaction to progressive strides the country had made. In the post Civil War period it was the Klu Klux Klan drawn originally from Ex-Confederate troops. In more modern times there were Fascist and Nazi-Sympathizer BUNDS that would form for pretty much the same motivation only with anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism spiced with a good deal of anti-immigrant hatred. When you put this together that the largest recent surge in gun ownership was not driven by a reasonable fear of crime, but the unreasoned fear by the election of a Black President, lots of things tend to add up. These studies aren't targeting the Tea Party, they are a recognition that the Tea Party DOES draw in a lot of the extreme whacko type among it's members. Gun ownership and crime are harder things to track, but what we are seeing in a new wave of shootings is a rise of impulse shootings, which have no real clear end to them... not even the survival of the shooters. So when it comes to trying to correlate trends in gun ownership, the real question to be asked is who's now buying guns in greater quantities than before. If the rise is that of the impulse, especially fear or angst-driven buyer than the decrease in crime is DESPITE the increase in gun ownership, not because of it.
36. Re:War of government against people? by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-06-09 14:54 · Score: 2
  
  Gun laws have a big problem: there are already tons of guns in the US. Guns last a long time, even a poorly maintained gun will generally still fire, just not accurately. This means that a decrease in availability of guns to criminals will lag the decrease to law-abiding citizens by decades.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
37. Re:War of government against people? by cgriffiths · 2014-06-09 14:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It isn't an opinion. It's as scientific as it gets.
  Your post is opinion, there's some pseudo-science within your post but ultimately it is a biased opinion. By following your statistical analysis above by considering only two factors: rise in gun ownership and falling violent crime figures, you are coming to a very short sighted conclusion. There are many other arguments out there which could have been a larger contributing factor than more gun ownership such as outreach programs, changes in judicial sentencing, changes in public perception to specific factors of violent crime, heck even the BBC published an article on how removing lead from petroleum/gasoline in our cars has a strong correlation with reduced figures in violent crime.
  I'm not educated enough in social policy to comment on what changes in society would have had an impact on violent crime levels but you can't state that guns do not cause crime from the figures mentioned previously. Causation of crime comes in many forms, some that we understand and some we are yet to discover. For all we know other factors may have been more influential in reducing crime during that period than the impact of guns in circulation on increasing crime.
  You also have to consider that many crimes wouldn't exist or wouldn't be so accessible if it weren't for gun ownership such as school shootings [1] , armed robberies [2] and homicide [3] .
  I'm neither pro- nor anti- gun ownership, I live in a country without firearms and that's fine by me. I do see merit in firearm ownership when regulated properly to the extent where any person who has taken a test in firearm safety, is of a stable mind and hasn't committed a violent crime [4] in the last 5-10 years can own a firearm but this I will tolerate only with strong regulation.
  ---
  [1] How else would you go on a rampage in schools or other buildings? Sure you could use a knife, sword, axe or whatever else you choose but ultimately your attack range is gonna be a lot less allowing a lot more people to escape unharmed and a lot easier for people to overpower you if they so dare.
  [2] I mean armed in the sense of being with a firearm. A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the U.S. are committed with guns. Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used.
  [3] In the U.S. in 2011, 67% of homicide victims were killed by a gun. There is little doubt that many of these victims would have been murdered if there no were no guns about since those who have the intention to do so and have planned it will do it without firearms. However having ready access to a gun for an enraged, unstable individual wanting to harm another because of a form of dispute is definitely going to have an impact on crimes which weren't planned.
  [4] Obviously murders, attempted murders, brutal assaults and the like will prevent them ever owning a firearm and the time frame can be varied depending on the severity of the crime.
38. Re:War of government against people? by amicusNYCL · 2014-06-09 14:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  might as well snap them up if the price is good.
  That's what I noticed about the list of things they bought at the end of the article. They're getting M-14 rifles for $120 each, .45 pistols for $58.71, M-16s for $120, etc. Hell, if I was getting discounts like that I might buy an armored vehicle also.
  That being said, a sheriff saying that America is a war zone when it is clearly not and using that as an excuse is pretty damn worrying. If you want better equipment, fine, say that. But when I walk outside my house, a war zone is not what I see. Sort of makes you wonder that, if America is a war zone, who are the police fighting against?
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
39. Re:War of government against people? by TubeSteak · 2014-06-09 15:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, I certainly agree with most of your points (I normally do) but have to debate one particular omission from yours and GPs comments. Violence by Police departments has escalated drastically in the same time as criminal violence has gone down. Police brutality is close to a daily occurrence today, and not just the cops manhandling a suspected felon but outright killing people.
  I would question this conclusion.
  I'm inclined to think that the police have always been brutal, the only difference now is increased reporting (and video recording).
  As a point in case, the proliferation of cell phone video has led to a proliferation of lawsuits against police who have confiscated phones or arrested the videographer.
  It's something of a society wide problem, where in the past we didn't have a grasp on the extent of many problems, either from willful blindness or unintentional ignorance.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
40. Re:War of government against people? by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · 2014-06-09 15:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So just a counterpoint of logic:
  
  Hypothesis: A increasing leads to B increasing.
  Measured: A increases, B does not.
  Revised hypothesis: A therefore does not lead to B increasing, since there is a negative correlation.
  Reality: A increasing leads to B increasing, C increasing leads to B decreasing. During the measured period, A increases and C increases. If the effect of C increasing exceeds the effect of A increasing, then B decreases.
  Result: By not measuring or accounting for C, the measured results appear to be a negative correlation between A and B.
  
  The difficulty in a scenario like gun control is in the elimination of outside influences in the study. Unless all of the influences are accounted for, then negative correlation can mean that there is no causal relationship, or it can mean that the causal relationship is being overwhelmed by some other factor. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  
  --
  
  You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
41. Re:War of government against people? by vux984 · 2014-06-09 15:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If law enforcement needs this type of equipment,
  RTFA. They don't need it. They KNOW they don't need it. They freely agreed they'd prefer a smaller, lighter, more practical civilian police vehicle like a BearCat but that costs $200,000 to $300,000. That 55,000 lb MRAP listing north of $700,000 only cost them a measly $5000 as army surplus.
  Hell, even a police issue dodge ram, with typical law enforcement upgrades is going to cost an order of magnitude more than $5000.
  OTOH, although they got the MRAP for $5k, its going to be a beast on gas, and god help them if or when they need to replace any parts on it.
  I guess if they actually need something even lightly armored, if this thing runs for a year or three and they can turn around and sell it for 55,000 pounds of scrap metal after that they probably actually saved the taxpayers some money vs operating something else.
  The news here isn't that the police are looking to arm themselves with military gear, its that they are on tight budgets and military surplus is overkill specs, but is a lot cheaper than suitable civilian gear.
42. Re:War of government against people? by Pseudonym · 2014-06-09 15:14 · Score: 2
  
  If I had mod points, you would have them all.
  This is the flip side of the military-industrial complex. Wasting money in pointless wars results in a crapload of military surplus gear. Savvy cash-strapped police departments are buying them, using bullshit excuses about safety (which everyone knows are bullshit, but who's going to argue with officer safety) when what they're actually doing is using taxpayer money wisely.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
43. Re:War of government against people? by Arker · 2014-06-09 15:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I honestly think gun ownership is a secondary, in some cases almost extraneous factor. In regards to Europe, Scandinavia (where I have lived) actually has a higher rate of firearm ownership than the US. Yet very little violence. And why? It's cultural. The US is home to the most violent at least of the more developed cultures on earth, if not absolutely. We have been at war constantly since WWII. We have set ourselves up unilaterally as the world policeman, and we are constantly bombarded with propaganda to justify it. The ultimate result of that is a constant increase in militarism, and in the fundamentally mistaken belief that violence is the proper and appropriate way to sole problems of all sorts. And that in turn means that we will have high and climbing rates of violent crime regardless of material circumstance. Take away all the guns and all you will do is disadvantage the older people and empower the young thugs with knives and blunt objects. Reverse the underlying rot, and violence will decline, even if every person in the country were issued an 'assault rifle.'
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
44. Re:War of government against people? by TheDarkMaster · 2014-06-09 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's true... North-americans have the most violent culture I've ever seen. Violent sports (american footbal, basketball, ice hockey) violent schools (bullies can do whatever they want and the victims is that they are penalized if they react) and a way of thinking and acting violent where others around never have rights. And the thing that bothers me most is that my peers do not seem to care even a little to copy this culture within my country...
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
45. Re:War of government against people? by ShaunC · 2014-06-09 16:23 · Score: 2
  
  Hell, if I was getting discounts like that I might buy an armored vehicle also.
  If you live in Indiana, maybe you already have. It's taxpayer money buying these things, after all, and buying them for the second time. We already paid for the damned things once, when they were built and sent off to Iraq or Afghanistan.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
46. Re:War of government against people? by CodeBuster · 2014-06-09 16:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One argument against registration is that we cannot be sure how those records will be used by the government or who might obtain or misuse them in the future. We have already seen some media outlets publish names and addresses of gun owners and types of guns owned from information that probably shouldn't have been publicly available. A very handy tool for convicted felons looking to steal a gun, among other potential abuses. However, even that's just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what future governments might do with this information or whom they might expose it to? Giving information to the government is dangerous because it gives governments or their allies the ability to control others through threats to publish the information, or selective publication of the information or blackmail or any number of other nefarious uses. We have already seen with our phone and email records that the government cannot abstain from mischief. Why should we trust them with a registry of every gun owner in America?
47. Re:War of government against people? by gandhi_2 · 2014-06-09 16:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It depends how it is measured.
  If you take polls relying on self reporting, then yes, the numbers are slightly declining.
  If you take the number of NICS background checks then the numbers are up.
  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...
  Most states have no registration at all. I can buy or sell a gun to another private citizen I don't have to tell anyone, as long as it's not an NFA item. I can even mill out my own un-serialized rifle that no-one knows about (talked about in a previous /. article on 3d printed guns)
  Even the number of NFA classified items (machine-guns, suppressors, etc) are up.
  http://www.businessinsider.com...
  If only 1 in 5 of the NICS checks resulted in a sale, then gun sales from stores alone outpaced the us population increase.
  The gun industry actually sailed through the recessions like they never happened, and gun-industry jobs grew like 30%. People will be retiring off the money they make selling ammo with crazy markups.
  My state's concealed carry program has been off tha hook as the kids say.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
48. Re:War of government against people? by gandhi_2 · 2014-06-09 16:49 · Score: 2
  
  license = permission slip.
  a citizen doesn't need a permission slip.
  registration = list of houses to raid.
  a list that has been used time and again by totalitarian governments, including GB.
  laughing stock? you live by government permission slip... like I give a fuck what you think.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
49. Re:War of government against people? by gandhi_2 · 2014-06-09 16:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  take out the 5 most left-wing anti-gun cities and we around the 5-10 safest countries in the world.
  Ahh.. Mexico. Where private gun ownership is forbidden.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
50. Re:War of government against people? by camperdave · 2014-06-09 17:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Or, in other words, there's an open window in the basement allowing the dog to get in and out when he is supposedly "locked up"
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
51. Re:War of government against people? by oobayly · 2014-06-09 17:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  While I completely agree with you on the violence being cultural rather than due solely to firearm ownership rates, I do have to disagree with you about Scandinavia having higher ownership rates. According to this the US (89/100 people) has 53% more firearms per person than Serbian (58/100 people) who is second in the list. Sweden and Norway are ranked 10th and 11th respectively with almost 32/100 people.
  This is a list of privately owned firearms, not possession, so state owned firearms (like in Switzerland) are not included. However to bring the possession rate of Sweden up to the ownership rate in the US, the government would have to give a firearm to every 2nd person.
  One of the reasons why gun control works isn't because it stops sociopaths doing crazy things, it works because it's a lot harder to damage with a knife than a TEC-9 in one hand and a shotgun in the other. I was appalled when I came across this page detailing US school shootings while looking up the numbers.
52. Re:War of government against people? by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-06-09 18:02 · Score: 2
  
  And that in turn means that we will have high and climbing rates of violent crime regardless of material circumstance.
  We have neither high nor climbing violent crime rates. They are low and have been getting lower for 30 years. See other posts in this thread for citations.
  The constant propaganda isn't causing us to be violent. The constant torture porn movies aren't causing us to be violent. Rap music isn't causing us to be violent. Pile it all up and still we're getting less violent all the time.
53. Re:War of government against people? by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-06-09 18:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It is entirely possible to have a scenario where some factor is driving crime down faster than gun ownership is driving it up. The fact that it hasn't been found...
  It may have been found. There is a remarkably close correlation to the reduction of lead in gasoline to the reduction in violent crime. The downward trend in violent crime follows after lead is banned, and it follows the ban consistently even when the ban occurs at different times in different places with otherwise similar cultures and economic conditions. Nobody has traced the biochemical pathways yet, but it's the best candidate discovered in many years.
54. Re:War of government against people? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 18:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Considering the fact that the USA's major source of violent crime comes from fewer than fifteen counties (that's right,counties...not states), logically, the remainder USA must be a remarkably safe place to be, despite all of the guns, all of the media violence.
  The US has very poor areas with low violence rates, very rich places with low violence rates, and it has places where the very rich and the very poor share the same relatively cramped geography. The trend is the violence is most often found in the latter. My belief is the greatest contribution to violence is wildly varying income disparity.
55. Re:War of government against people? by Arker · 2014-06-09 18:36 · Score: 2
  
  "This is a list of privately owned firearms, not possession" Not only that, it's a list of *registered* privately owned firearms. Double that to get a very conservative estimate of approximate actual numbers (these are countries with utterly absurd, though rarely enforced, firearm laws which strongly encourages owners to forget to report) of privately owned firearms, then figure in a militia system similar though certainly not identical to Switzerland, and I am confident for Sweden at least the number is higher than the US. Anyone in Sweden that wants access, not just to hunting arms but to squad or even platoon level military weapons, could lay their hands on them easily. This is a country where Moose hunting is not only an ancient tradition, but a practical necessity, and theoretically universal military service is tempered by an eagerness to excuse anyone that does not want to be in class as quickly as possible so the rest can get on with it. For generations the military has been geared for a resistance war against the 'Eastern Foe' which means there are weapons caches scattered quite thickly and it's a practical necessity that a great many people have access to them. The rest of Scandinavia I have less direct experience with I will admit, but my impression of Norway and Finland would lead me to expect them to be somewhat similar, particularly Finland.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
56. Re:War of government against people? by iserlohn · 2014-06-09 18:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  First of all, the level of firearm ownership in an area does have an effect on the firearm homicide rate. It correlates -
  http://ajph.aphapublications.o...
  Violent crime has gone down in most of the industrialized world over the past 3 decades, regardless of whether a country restricts firearms or not -
  http://rgambler.com/2013/11/03...
  http://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/...
  http://www.economist.com/news/...
  However, America's violent crime rate is much higher than most developed countries -
  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
  The growing consensus (in public policy circles at least) these days is that it is not gun ownership that is causing this violence, but the American gun culture -
  http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
  http://world.time.com/2012/12/...
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/t...
  The problem is that we keep looking at gun ownership rates The Swiss has high levels of gun ownership, but they also have a very strict culture of gun safety and training. Men are required to undergo military training and be in the reserves for 10 years, keeping their sealed army-issued firearm at home or in the Zeughaus, for use in case of invasion. Thus, they have lots of guns, but little gun crime.
  Now, the question is how do you measure gun culture? In America you have this issues with two main groups poisoning the culture - the gangs and the "don't tread on me" types. How can you design a study to measure the effect of this culture on gun crime?
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
57. Re:War of government against people? by Tom · 2014-06-09 19:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  While I agree with you this is corruption, if the choice is between a union that moves government money into the pockets of at least some citizens vs. a lobby group that moves government money into the pockets of the 0.01% then I'd rather have the former.
  Keep watching and check where the new candidate moves the money to.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
58. Re:War of government against people? by Tom · 2014-06-09 19:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is that the USA has dug itself deep into a hole and getting out is hard.
  Once you have guns in the population, stricter gun control laws lead to a shift of the existing stockpile towards criminals, which probably results in higher crime. Basically: The criminals still have all the guns they used to, while the citizen don't.
  Gun control laws don't work short-term. They only work long-term, if you manage to actually remove the existing guns from the population.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
59. Re:War of government against people? by lgw · 2014-06-09 19:10 · Score: 2
  
  Different topic, but you are the batshit craziest poster on Slashdot
  Wow, you must be new here. Jane barely moves the needle, by /. standards! The batshit crazy people around here have been perma-banned and post anyway as AC, stalk people and post dozens of replies to their foes. I miss the GNAA trolls, they were mild by comparison.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
60. Re:War of government against people? by lgw · 2014-06-09 19:14 · Score: 2
  
  Why is there any dispute? In the cities, it's crack cocaine. The various people who mugged me when I used to be the pizza guy were all getting money for a fix. And, thanks to their own success, they're all dead now. Some problems solve themselves. Meth is nasty, but crack was nuts.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
61. Re:War of government against people? by Xest · 2014-06-09 20:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Watching this thread of the three of you talking about logic is one of the most painful things I've ever seen on Slashdot.
  Yes, the logic is fine, but the fundamental premises being used as starting points are not.
  Jane Q Public uses a very simplified example of a dog, and uses that simplified example to try and justify her jumping to a conclusion in a far more complex scenario when the two have absolutely no relationship whatsoever. It's about as valid a logical argument as saying my username is Xest, which is true, thus it must also be true that guns increase crime. Obviously that's completely fucking stupid. She washed away the whole basis of the discussion with "It gets a bit more complicated when the numbers go up but the same principle still holds." which is completely not logic. It's an affront to logical argument.
  Runaway1956 used the premise "Time and again, when cities and states make gun laws stricter, crime increases. And, repeatedly, when gun laws are relaxed, there is a short initial period of increased violence, followed by a decidedly downward trend in crime." which is false. In the UK increased restrictions on gun ownership actually show the opposite pattern. The idea that there's any kind of consistency in the evidence that more gun ownership results in less crime is completely and utterly false.
  Now you hold this up as an example of impeccable logic, you accuse others of debating only with emotion. Guess what you're doing? Guess why you were willing to turn a blind eye to these blatant gaping holes in their arguments? Because you're not interested in logic, you're interested in emotion.
  Throwing up words like logic and coming to potentially incorrect conclusions because of flawed foundations to an argument doesn't suddenly make the argument logical. Realistically there are far too many factors to ever reach a genuine logical conclusion as to the impact of guns, if you're pretending otherwise like you three have then you're simply full of shit.
  It's an emotional debate because there's always scope for doubt in any evidence that can be introduced into the discussion. If there was a simple demonstrable way to prove one way or the other the effect of guns then the debate would be over, but no such thing exists, or likely ever can exist. So talking about armouries deterring confrontational crime and the like is just equally meaningless bollocks, especially given we've seen the exact same decrease in the UK of confrontational crimes but instead correlating with less guns.
62. Re:War of government against people? by gandhi_2 · 2014-06-09 20:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  it is actually a bit a stretch.
  1st thing, the US is actually not that bad. with 4.8 murders per 100k people, we are no-where near the bad part of town.
  on the other hand, here are the top 5, from data in this 2012 report.
  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...
  city and m/100k
  detroit 54.58
  baltimore 35.01
  philadelphia 21.50
  memphis 20.23
  chicago 18.48
  subtracting the population and murders from the US, and the US moves to around 4.1. removing DC and we move to 4.09.
  cities containing 2% of the US population account for 11% of the murders.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
63. Re:War of government against people? by rioki · 2014-06-09 20:15 · Score: 2
  
  Although I generally agree with you, the Swiss example is slightly misleading. Yes almost every Swiss male under 30 has an army issued assault rifle at home, but not the ammunition for it. They used to have a problem with homicides where enraged husbands shot or threatened their wives. They used to have one or two clips of ammunition with the rifle as to be combat ready any time. They figured that any invasion would not happen so sudden and as a result the ammunition is now stored centrally and handed out on demand. The result is a significant decrees in homicides.
64. Re:War of government against people? by Xest · 2014-06-09 20:29 · Score: 2
  
  Well, given that the AC is absolutely right and that you've jumped to a conclusion based on a misunderstanding of cause and effect and lack of understanding of the importance of confounding factors I'd say that the more likely people that are wrong are your statistics professors and logic professors and whatever textbooks you supposedly read.
  Maybe you should've gone to a better school where the teachers and textbooks are actually correct?
65. Re:War of government against people? by Ginger+Unicorn · 2014-06-09 21:23 · Score: 2
  
  Just speaking purely from the logical perspective, it could be the case that gun proliferation has no impact on crime rates or it increases crime rates, but that there's some other independent factor that has driven crime down to the extent that the impact of guns is hidden. I'm not arguing for one side or the other. I'm just pointing out that the logic, that negative correlation disproves a claim, isn't airtight unless you control for all the variables.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
66. Re:War of government against people? by dave420 · 2014-06-09 23:47 · Score: 2
  
  Your post is so full of nonsense it's bewildering how you managed to fit so much into two sentences.
  First off, the "anti-gun" cities are separated from "pro-gun" cities by porous borders, making their gun control less than perfect - serious gun control laws work, as have been demonstrated by the countries in which they have been instituted.
  Secondly, private gun ownership in Mexico is far from forbidden, with over 3,000,000 registered, legal guns in private ownership (in 2012), increasing every year.
  Thirdly, by your ridiculous metric every other country should be able to remove the 5 most crime-ridden areas/cities and restore the US to its rightful position as the second-most murderous country in the developed world.
  But I guess it's easier to simply make excuses, or claim that the US's pathetic murder rate is somehow a feature and not a bug, than it is to admit something's wrong and needs to be fixed. Your attitude guarantees problems are never fixed.
67. Re:War of government against people? by AmiMoJo · 2014-06-10 00:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Macho bullshit. The best way to protect your family is to be a pragmatist. If someone points a gun at you or your family it's best to just co-operate and wait for them to go away. Your stuff can be replaced, lives cannot be. The statistics are quite clear. In cases where two people are armed and pointing weapons at each other one usually ends up being shot, in cases where only one is armed both usually live.
  Most criminals don't want to murder innocent people. Aside from anything it draws a lot more heat from the cops than a simple robbery. By drawing your own weapon you turn a situation where they just want to get away quickly into one where they want to kill you first.
  Of course, the most pragmatic thing to do is live somewhere where most criminals are not armed, but the US is locked into an arms race now so I'm afraid you are screwed.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
68. Re:War of government against people? by Shakrai · 2014-06-10 00:18 · Score: 2
  
  if the choice is between a union that moves government money into the pockets of at least some citizens vs. a lobby group that moves government money into the pockets of the 0.01% then I'd rather have the former.
  Counterpoint: Your hypothetical 0.01% don't have arrest powers.....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
69. Re:War of government against people? by Attila+Dimedici · 2014-06-10 01:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, the negative correlation is not airtight disproof of the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. However, it puts the burden of proof on those who are making the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime...and that proof needs to be more than "Well, this could be causing the decrease."
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
70. Re:War of government against people? by Attila+Dimedici · 2014-06-10 01:03 · Score: 2
  
  UM, Washington,DC and Chicago both used to have gun laws that basically made it impossible to someone who was not politically connected, or a member of certain other edge case groups, to legally possess a gun within city limits. These gun laws were over turned by the Supreme Court not that many years ago.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
71. Re:War of government against people? by phorm · 2014-06-10 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah. Canada *used to* deal with mental health. Many institutions were shut down, and people with severe illnesses essentially end up in general society - as you say, filled with pills - or on the streets (unless they cut of somebody's head on a Greyhound).
  Now mental health issues go somewhat through the general medical system (already overburdened) or through the judicial system (similarly burdened)
72. Re:War of government against people? by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-06-10 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's a problem for gun laws that they don't deprive everyone equally. I did not intend to imply that I support gun laws without amending the constitution. I agree that they're unconstitutional. I think that handguns (including revolvers) should be restricted, since they're used far more than rifles in violent crime and have fewer legitimate uses. They're more concealable, easier to carry, significantly less useful for hunting or competition target shooting, and nowhere near as good as a shotgun for home defense. Sadly most gun legislation focuses on rifles, which are far less useful for crime.
  
  I don't think that the 2nd amendment is useful for resisting the spread of tyranny. Modern tyrants don't work through martial law, they work through bread and circuses. Keeping the people fat and complacent is far more useful, since there are never enough at any time with nothing to lose. 'Brave New World' was far more prophetic than '1984.' Claims that the 2nd amendment provides an effective check against tyranny are misinformed at best.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
73. Re:War of government against people? by Ravaldy · 2014-06-10 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  The CDC has a recent report (which was requested by Obama) showing the increased gun ownership deters gun violence but don't be fooled by the report they say. The standard of living and the increased level of education of the general population has a much bigger impact on general violence than gun ownership. It was actually said that more people could afford guns because their standard of living had increased.
  It seems every gun owner out there needs to justify their ownership of a gun. Stop trying to justify it and use it properly. This means lock it so it cannot be miss used by a person with bad intentions. I think that's simple enough and allows everybody to continue enjoying guns for hunting, self defense or for target practice.
74. Re:War of government against people? by stoploss · 2014-06-10 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  While I agree with you this is corruption, if the choice is between a union that moves government money into the pockets of at least some citizens vs. a lobby group that moves government money into the pockets of the 0.01% then I'd rather have the former.
  Keep watching and check where the new candidate moves the money to.
  That's a false dichotomy. The unions and their compensation are directly responsible for my taxes being increased (sales and property taxes). Furthermore, this is not the government's money, it's the taxpayers' money that is being appropriated to feather these union people's nests.
  Bringing the unions to heel involves the new mayor forcing them to accept substantive changes to their abusive compensation. This is underway, and the inevitable lawsuits are winding their way through the courts. Hopefully once these unions are defeated we will be able to roll back the special tax assessments.
  So: beating the unions results in the possibility of more money for me and all the other non-millionaire/non-billionaire taxpayers like me in my city.
Face recognition, Armored vehicles, Phone spies by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 12:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The United States of America is a war zone, the government is at war with its citizens.
1. Re:Face recognition, Armored vehicles, Phone spies by reboot246 · 2014-06-09 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  And that is why they're so desperate to take our weapons. Disarm the citizens and the rest is easy.
  
  Oh, and it's not all semiautomatic hunting rifles like AR-15s. There are a LOT of .45 submachine guns floating around this country, plus other heavy weapons like Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR). You would truly be surprised what Americans are hiding.
$5k by reanjr · 2014-06-09 12:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

For five grand, I'd be tempted to buy one, too.
1. Re:$5k by Daniel_Staal · 2014-06-09 12:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This. The sheriff said he'd rather have a more police-oriented armored vehicle for his SWAT team, but they cost $300,000, and this only cost $5,000. It's bigger, slower, and uses more gas, but it's cheaper overall. He's working within a budget and it's budget-effective.
  The rest is window dressing and statements to appease the press.
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
2. Re:$5k by mythosaz · 2014-06-09 12:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Are they still for sale?
  I've got a teenager who needs a car he can't wreck :)
3. Re:$5k by BBF_BBF · 2014-06-09 13:26 · Score: 2
  
  You would think that just the scrap value would be more than $5g. Hell I got $200 for my lawn tractor.
  You didn't RTFA didn't you... All a government agency has to do to obtain the equipment is to apply, get approved, then pay for shipping... those are the terms of the plan. (There are probably some other rules, but you get the picture.) The Sheriff's Office pretty much got the vehicle for free and paid $5000 for shipping costs.
4. Re:$5k by amiga3D · 2014-06-09 13:54 · Score: 2
  
  We don't need to read no stinkin' article. We post on shit just from scanning the erroneous summary.
5. Re:$5k by ArcadeMan · 2014-06-09 14:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You're wrong, nVidia is better than Kellogg's.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
6. Re:$5k by SumDog · 2014-06-09 14:40 · Score: 2
  
  And the company that made it still got it's $300k. Even if the municipality didn't pay for it, someone did. Most likely the federal government and therefore, the taxpayer.
Re:What about escalation? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-06-09 12:10 · Score: 2

Hey, escalation is good for the economy. Firearms factory jobs FTW!

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:What about escalation? by olsmeister · 2014-06-09 12:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone."
SHeriff Michael Gayer by geekoid · 2014-06-09 12:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

needs to go to a war zone for a few months.
Violence has been trending down for decades. This dumb ass just get a hard on with driving around in the military vehicle.
Plus he is in Johnson county doing Sheriff duties. Not anything close to a war zone. Using a few stories from the news to claim America is a war zone is so fucking stupid this guy should be fired. Clearly he can not do basic statistics within his field. Someone anyone making purchasing decision should be able to do.
Tell me what crime you deal with the requires this?
http://www.jocosheriff.org/ind...
AND it's going to be more expensive to maintain, and the police should never use military anything, ever. They are NOT the military. Too many people are loosing touch with what the difference is.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:SHeriff Michael Gayer by Nidi62 · 2014-06-09 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  AND it's going to be more expensive to maintain, and the police should never use military anything, ever. They are NOT the military.
  Why SHOULDN'T civilian organizations make use of military surplus when it is available? It saves them money and makes use of existing stuff instead of having to build new. So what if they aren't the military? I've got a couple of old field jackets, should I not use them because I'm not the military, even though they are good, rugged, serviceable pieces of clothing.
  There is a bit of a difference between a bush jacket and an anti-mine vehicle. Him buying a surplus MRAP would be like you buying a surplus spacesuit from NASA. Sure, it might keep you warm and dry, but it's a lot more complicated and inefficient to use than an actual jacket and makes you look like an idiot going down the street.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:SHeriff Michael Gayer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 12:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >>Why SHOULDN'T civilian organizations make use of military surplus when it is available? It saves them money and makes use of existing stuff instead of having to >>build new. So what if they aren't the military? I've got a couple of old field jackets, should I not use them because I'm not the military, even though they are good, >>>rugged, serviceable pieces of clothing.
  Well hell, why do we even need a civilian police force? Why not just use military personal to police the civilian population? It would save money by using existing personel that are no longer needed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
3. Re:SHeriff Michael Gayer by s.petry · 2014-06-09 13:50 · Score: 2
  
  Cheap how? When you have to pay 1000 times more money for a replacement part because they are only manufactured by DOD contractors? The fuel spent on these old rigs is going to be cheaper? Insurance is cheaper for these behemoths?
  Me thinks your point about "cheap" is a very narrow and unrealistic. If they were buying lawn ornaments I'd agree with you completely, but these are not lawn ornaments.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Ob by Hognoxious · 2014-06-09 12:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer told the Indy Star: "The United States of America has become a war zone."'
And then when he thought the mic was off he added "...and if it isn't, we'll soon make it one!"

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You'll have to forgive Sheiff Gayer by rahvin112 · 2014-06-09 12:19 · Score: 5, Informative

You'll have to forgive Sheriff Gayer, after all it must feel like a warzone when you spend all you're available time and money engaged in the war on drugs because it's so damn profitable for the cops.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

Nineteen eighty-four was the year that Congress rewrote the civil forfeiture law to funnel drug money and "drug related" assets into the police agencies that seize them. This amendment offered law enforcement a new source of income, limited only by the energy police and prosecutors were willing to put into seizing assets. The number of forfeitures mushroomed: Between 1985 and 1991 the Justice Department collected more than $1.5 billion in illegal assets; in the next five years, it almost doubled this intake. By 1987 the Drug Enforcement Administration was more than earning its keep, with over $500 million worth of seizures exceeding its budget.

The numbers are only worse now. States like Minesota that are average size take in around 8 million dollars and almost every penny of that money is given right back to the cops.
Junk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-09 12:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Most of the MRAPs are junk. The only thing they're really good at is absorbing a blast coming from under the vehicle. They're unstable and they guzzle fuel because of their weight and lack of aerodynamics. The citizens should be more concerned about how much of the municipal budget is going into fueling these pieces of shit.
1. Re:Junk by Sir+Holo · 2014-06-09 16:42 · Score: 2
  
  How many Roadside Bombs did we have in the USA in 2013?
  
  None? Well, how about 2012?
  
  None? Well, how about 2011?
  
  None? Well, how about 2010?
  
  Continue, ad infinitum.
Re:Absolutely disgusting by Bradmont · 2014-06-09 12:24 · Score: 4, Funny

This is why I constantly fear for my life and don't ever go out after dark in the multicultural hell hole of violence and degeneracy that is Canada.
violent crime has plunged by SuperBanana · 2014-06-09 12:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"There's violence in the workplace, there's violence in schools and there's violence in the streets. You are seeing police departments going to a semi-military format because of the threats we have to counteract. If driving a military vehicle is going to protect officers, then that's what I'm going to do."
Uh, yeah, except violent (and property) crime has fallen to levels we haven't seen in 50 years (police-involved shootings, however, have gone up - in part, I'm sure, because of all the war vets getting preferential hiring in police jobs.)
This reminds me of the firefighters in our city. Fires have become extremely rare, thanks to better standards/code for electrics, building, appliances, etc...as well as education, etc.
Instead of laying off firefighters, they started sending them out to respond to medical calls. So we have giant ladder trucks responding to grandma saying her chest hurts, instead of spending that operating expenditure on ambulances that can respond quicker, or, say, pivoting the "fleet" towards much smaller, faster SUVs that carry high-tech equipment. Everyone thinks they're still really busy fighting fires. Win-win, except for citizens, screwed by both unnecessary expenditure and ineffective utilization of budget...

--
Please help metamoderate.
Re:Yuck. by shikaisi · 2014-06-09 12:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Sheriff Gayer?
Well, fuck, that explains it!
The other sheriff quoted in the article is Sheriff Cox. With names like those, they probably need heavy weaponry to suppress the local mockery.

--
No left turn unstoned.
How Many by overshoot · 2014-06-09 12:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

police (deputies, etc.) over the past five years have been attacked with IEDs?
Alternately, how would something like this have helped the cops in Las Vegas this weekend?

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
Re:No need - Too much money. by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-06-09 12:52 · Score: 2

I agree. My local mall now has license plate scanners on all of it's entrances courtesy of DHS.
Some of this stuff is cheap war surplus that probably the small police departments will find impossible to maintain, like MRAPs. But the surveillance stuff is really annoying.
Good news - combat pay! by sk999 · 2014-06-09 12:56 · Score: 3, Funny

How much extra per month do I get?
Just read their stats - nothing that needed this by Animats · 2014-06-09 12:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Just read the statistics for the sheriffs department involved. 133 "crimes against persons" so far this year. But that includes a lot of bad checks, which they list as a crime against a person. It also includes telephone harassment, and "criminal threats". Some assaults, some rapes. No murders. About 63 drug offenses, mostly from traffic stops. Nothing for which an armored vehicle would be useful. It looks like a cop shop that has some real business maybe a few times a day.
They don't need an MRAP. They need a collection agency for the bad checks and a social worker for the domestic disturbances.
Re:What we need are more guns by Mike_Theory · 2014-06-09 13:09 · Score: 2

Murder rates in the old west were far lower than most major cities today

--
/endrant
War on terrorism by manu0601 · 2014-06-09 13:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the war on terrorism logic. Even the cops are afraid and see military grade enemies everywhere now.
This is bullshit by Rigel47 · 2014-06-09 13:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

> "The United States of America has become a war zone," he said. "There's violence in the workplace, there's violence in schools and there's violence in the streets. You are seeing police departments going to a semi-military format because of the threats we have to counteract.

You are no longer an officer of the peace.

You are a new armed wing, a great example of the militarization of the American police force. As part part of the Deep State you see yourself as being on one side with the quarrelsome public and their whining on the other.

Violent crime in the US is at a multi-decade low.. and yet you seek tanks to patrol the streets of US cities.

It is any wonder that people freak when the DHS tries to buy 3 billion bullets?
crime rates by Charliemopps · 2014-06-09 13:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Violent Crime rates are the lowest they've been for decades: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Yet "Justifiable Homicide" by the police when attacked has almost doubled: http://tacreports.org/storage/...
(i.e. their response is more violent)
While the number of citizens killed by police in general has remained the same despite the reduction in violent crime.
Police murdered while on duty is at a 50yr low, so it's not like they are in some new mortal danger.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Re:Absolutely disgusting by compro01 · 2014-06-09 13:55 · Score: 4, Informative

An example: Saskatoon(pop ~260k) has a murder rate than NYC(pop ~8.4m).
You seem to be missing a word from this sentence. Might it perhaps be "lower"? Because it's the only one that would be factual.
In 2013, according to the Saskatoon Police Service's crime map, Saskatoon had a total of 4 homicides (Which occurred on January 1, July 11, August 20, and August 30). That's a rate of 1.80/100k (city population is 222k. 260k is the census metropolitan area, which includes bedroom communities, which aren't part of Saskatoon's crime stats)
In 2013, NYC had 333 homicides. That's a rate of 3.96/100k.
I'm fairly sure that 1.8<3.96

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
You're That Guy. by SuperBanana · 2014-06-09 14:01 · Score: 2

"I was providing my experience, dick. I didn't say it was true for you or anyone else."
You were being That Guy who, when someone says something, feels it necessary to be a "dick" and say "THE LIGHTBULB WORKS FINE IN MY OFFICE" in response.
"TV showed us all that Gage and DeSoto were responding to medical calls on Emergency! in 1972,"
Did you seriously just cite a TV show?

--
Please help metamoderate.
1. Re:You're That Guy. by swillden · 2014-06-10 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Did you seriously just cite a TV show?
  It actually seems like a reasonable citation to me, demonstrating that Americans found the idea of fire department EMTs to be normal.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Yuck. by rmdingler · 2014-06-09 14:03 · Score: 2

If George was alive to appreciate the comedic material fallen into his lap from this one, he would be twirling his fingers together like Mr Burns, chanting Excellent.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Depends on your perspective I guess by rsilvergun · 2014-06-09 14:12 · Score: 2

when the riots hit LA people were surprised that the rioters stuck to their own neighborhoods and basically trashed their own communities. What nobody mentioned was the reason why. Large numbers of armed police cordoned off the wealthy neighborhoods and kept the looters from spilling over.

It's not so much the ruling class here, as the upper class. Even the upper middle class. Basically, if you're going to abandon the poor the their fate you need to build walls to keep 'em out...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Military industrial complex by rsilvergun · 2014-06-09 14:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yep, it's a by product of the military industrial complex that's been propping up our economy since the end of WWII. Since we couldn't have socialism we just built lots of army vehicles. And that means lots of surplus and a heavily militarized police force. I don't think anyone really planned it, it's just one of the twisted distortions from our way of keeping the economy going...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:What about escalation? by fustakrakich · 2014-06-09 14:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him.
Call the IRS

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:education by Hategrin · 2014-06-09 14:36 · Score: 5, Informative

OP's logical failure is called the fallacy of the single cause. After half a dozen logic classes and 4 textbooks... I wouldn't be so quick to judge his professors, but it's odd someone could pass a logic course without knowing basic ELEMENTARY logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
It's time to mine the donuts! by seedoubleyou · 2014-06-09 14:40 · Score: 2

Krispy Kreme, Dunkin Donuts, and Tim Horton's take notice! Donuts with frickin' lasers is our only hope.
the war on drugs/poverty/stupidity? by AndyKron · 2014-06-09 15:10 · Score: 2

Which failed war is he referring to?
Re:It's a BS excuse by EzInKy · 2014-06-09 15:16 · Score: 2

So it couldn't possibly be that local law enforcement is arming itself to defend against paranoid homeland security? Things have been way to one sided towards the feds forces for way too long now.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
This is the result by markdavis · 2014-06-09 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is the result of the militarization of the police:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
Re:Yuck. by pushing-robot · 2014-06-09 15:36 · Score: 2

The other sheriff quoted in the article is Sheriff Cox.
Of Johnson County.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
The Border Patrol Near San Diego by tquasar · 2014-06-09 15:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I drive through "Check Points" on major roads and highways in San Diego County staffed by mostly friendly agents who wave me to proceed on my journey. But I am scanned by an array of sensors, maybe as many as fifteen, two miles ahead of the choke point and another array near their location that is kind of intimidating. By the time I get to their station they know more about me than I do! The sites have "Stadium Lighting" at night that is blinding and destroys night vision. There is no "opt out". But I enjoy the attention, thank you for protecting me, I guess....
violent crime is trending down by cats-paw · 2014-06-09 16:18 · Score: 2

Many people have mentioned this, but why ?
I think this article is quite interesting.
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
Does correlation imply causation ?

--
Absolute statements are never true
Officer Safety...Not wearing seat belt?!?!?! by mrbluejello · 2014-06-09 16:44 · Score: 2

"For me, it's all about officer safety..."
The guy driving isn't even wearing a seat belt!
War zone by Orion+Blastar · 2014-06-09 18:06 · Score: 2

I got waterboarded by the CIA because of some science fiction I posted on the Internet. It was deleted and my account was banned.
I am constantly monitored for what I post on the Internet now.
Maybe not a war zone yet, but certainly a police state even if crime is low.

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Re:What about escalation? by SuricouRaven · 2014-06-09 18:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I still do not approve of that move.
Sure, everyone knew Capone was guilty. But the police couldn't prove it in court (largely due to Capone's effective witness intimidation and bribery campaigns). The correct response to this situation should be to gather evidence of the alleged crimes until they could successfully prosecute. Instead someone decided to go on a fishing expidition. It was an underhanded trick, to first decide someone needed to be convicted and then go looking for a crime to convict them of.
People approve of that case because it was used to lock up a real crime lord - but it's exactly the same legal trick that can be used to silence political opponents, break up protest groups and imprison activists. First decide someone must be eliminated, then look for a law they have violated. There are so many laws, everyone has violated some of them - there is no longer any such thing as a law-abiding person.
What is wrong with your society? by prefec2 · 2014-06-09 22:49 · Score: 2

Honestly, sitting here in Germany, I wonder what is going on in the US. I've visited the US years ago and my impression was that beside some oddities (e.g., people running around with guns on the street, people telling me that the EU will be the next Roman Empire) the US is a nice place especially when it comes to its inhabitants. Nowadays, most of my information about the US is from the media (including the Internet) and I have the impression that your country is falling apart. First of all, you have a war on anything. In other countries these things are called problems or challenges. Second, your political system is constructed to suppress minority opinion resulting in an immobility of politics. And third, you have lost to solve internal conflicts. Instead you built guarded communities, like in South Africa or other developing countries. You have the highest rate on prison inmates of the world. So please FIX IT. Otherwise your broken country will also break our almost broken countries in the EU. True we have to fix our states too, but at least we are not a war zone (and yes the Ukraine is in Europe, but not part of the EU).
welcome to the war zone by potpie · 2014-06-10 01:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Any place becomes a war zone when you march an army through it.

--
Esoteric reference.