"The meter is not your property and hacking it without authorization is illegal."
If you attach it to the wall of MY home, expect it to get hacked.
Seriously. You attach something to my house that is intended for surveillance (which is in fact what it does), and then have the gall to try to call it unethical if *I* mess with it???
In most venues, it doesn't have to be extreme duress, just duress. The essence of the entrapment concept is that you were somehow convinced by authorities to do something that you would not normally do. Theoretically, neither the severity of the crime nor the extremity of the pressure (within reason) are of any import. It is sufficient only that you were tricked.
"Second, most people do not experience those tendencies for extended durations of time."
But that's the thing... true psychopathy is not a temporary reaction to conditions. It is a persistent personality disorder.
Given that, though, your point does call into question the predictive ability of such analyses.
For example, there was a time when I have no doubt that I would have met just about any test's criteria for (the popular understanding of) paranoia. But, as it turned out, there really were people "out to get me". Now that situation has changed, and my behavior is back to... as normal as it will ever get.
At that time, I have little doubt that I could have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and the kicker is that I couldn't prove that my experiences were real (else I would have had the offenders arrested).
Since then, some of them have been arrested, and the others have learned that messing with me was not a good idea. And I can get back to a more-or-less normal life.
I have learned something from that: if you THINK you're going crazy, you probably aren't.
Dude, the U.S. has been experimenting with one or another form of gun control, in more or less extreme fashion, in various states and municipalities, for around 80 years.
And the statistics (as compiled by THE U.S. GOVERNMENT) over that time, are very clear: it doesn't work.
It might work in Australia (thought it actually didn't) and it might work in England (though it actually didn't)...
... but even if those statistics WERE NOT questionable, it doesn't matter, because we have very solid and reliable statistics RIGHT HERE, for... where else? RIGHT HERE.
It's late, and I am quite literally tired of pointing people at actual factual information. Go to the Department of Justice website. If you know what statistics you are actually looking for, they should not be hard to find. If you can't find them, don't blame me. But I already know what they say.
"I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude"
Get as tired as you like. Because you haven't even framed the problem properly.
In fact, what YOU are saying, is that "Nobody has found a solution I like, so that's no solution."
Ehhhhhhh..... (sound of buzzer on stage) "Sorry, that's not quite it."
"And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias... "
Dude. You don't read the news. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, about a year and a half ago, maybe two years, that what you are saying is BULLSHIT.
They ruled that there is no question, but the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. They said it in so many words, in their decision that struck down the firearms licensing restrictions in D.C.
Get a clue, man. History says, and the Supreme Court RECENTLY said, right in your face, that you are wrong.
In my personal opinion, it should be exactly as illegal for a policeman to impersonate another citizen as it is for another citizen to impersonate a police officer.
And it should also be (and in most cases it is, but sadly has seldom been enforced) just as illegal for a policeman to commit any crime as it is for another citizen.
Certainly there are important (but very few) exceptions that are necessary for them to be able to perform their jobs. But the key phrase there is "very few".
That's a massively over-complex example. Here's a simple example of entrapment:
Undercover officer sees a guy on the streetcorner smoking a joint. Cop walks up to guy and says, "Hey, man, got any to sell?" Guy says "No. I don't sell the stuff. Personal use only." Cop says, "Come on, man, I just want a couple of joints to take to a party I'm going to. No big thing. I just don't know anybody around here." Guy says, "No, man. I told you. Go away." Cop says "Come ON, dude. Just two joints. I really need some. I'll give you $20."
Guy sighs and says, "Okay, man. I'm not into this but just this once. Here."
Cop arrests guy for dealing. (Depending on the state, if you sell ANY, it's a misdemeanor. Felony depends on amount.)
That's entrapment. The policeman talked him into doing something he would not normally do, in order to make the bust.
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides?
Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse?
And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them?
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
"There's no chance that the amendment would have been passed if it was possible to foretell what it would lead to."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, right.
Please note that (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed), the right to bear arms is an individual right, and (as historical documents clearly show) was guaranteed not only because of the fundamental truth that one has a right to defend oneself against aggression, but also from acknowledgment that was possible that aggression could come from our own government.
I frankly don't care if you're terrified of guns. That has no bearing on my right to have one.
Interesting how your citations only lead us to abstracts of papers that cost about $20 each.
Also interesting that all of them cite Hemenway as an author.
I don't want to pull an ad hominem here, but I think it is pretty safe to say that Hemenway has a bit of bias, considering his main occupation.
The abstracts essentially describe meta-analyses, yet appear to come to different conclusions than the people who did the original research (e.g., Kleck and Lock). This causes me to wonder what their criteria are for determining "availability", and other factors.
I also question the relevance of a study of other nations, since it has long been known that the statistics in the United States do not mirror those of other nations.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural. Fixing the cultural problem doesn't require removing the guns.
Though it probably requires removing the Prohibition-type drug laws that seem to spark much of the gun violence (just like the real Prohibition sparked some of the worst gun violence in US history).
Mod up.
Exactly. The vast majority of firearms-related homicide in the U.S. is drug- or gang-related (which are quite often the same thing). It is criminals killing criminals, generally over illegal drug profits (or some other kind of illegal profit, but most of it drugs).
Take away the illegality, you take away the ridiculous profits. Take away the profits, you take away the motive for killing. It sounds simplistic, but our own experience with Prohibition shows it to be true.
"... states with laxer laws don't have lower rates because of their stance, it is their lower rate that prevents development of cultural pressures to demand governmental action."
Which would be true if, in the United States, some cause-effect had not been strongly indicated. Areas that enact firearms restrictions tend to see crime go up. Areas that relax firearms restrictions tend to see crime rates go down.
Prior to some loosening of the firearms restrictions, 20% of homicides in the U.S. occurred in just 4 cities: New York, Detroit, Chicago, and District of Columbia. Their combined population is about 6% of the U.S. And all 4 cities had stringent firearms restrictions.
When licensing requirements for firearms ownership in D.C. were relaxed in 2008 (due to the court decision that it was unconstitutional), the crime rate dropped significantly. And that is not an isolated case... the same sort of thing has happened all over the U.S.
"As a european who have spent the last 3.5 years in the DC metro area, I have my ideas why the murder rate is so high in the DC area. Racial segregation and poverty, with no chance for social ascension, effectively creating ghettos, play a key role. you can bet on it, the murder rate is not driven up by the murders in Georgetown..."
And so you have just invalidated any argument you may have that guns themselves are the cause, because there are so many other reasons.
This is not Europe. No matter how things work there, we have solid statistics from close to 90 years of experience with "gun control" (firearms restrictions) to varying degrees, in various states, at one time or another.
And the statistics are clear: it doesn't work. Not here, in the U.S. Areas that have the most restrictions continue to have the most homicides from firearms. Areas that reduce restrictions see crime rates (including death by firearm) go DOWN.
These are the government's own statistics (Department of Justice).
Over the last 20+ years (close to 30 now), the crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping steadily. Over the same period, private firearm ownership, per capita, has continued to go UP.
Am I saying that more guns cause less crime? No, I am not claiming that. But the statistics clearly prove that more guns DO NOT cause more crime.
Columbine (and all other school shootings in recent years), the massacre in Killeen, Texas, and on and on... they ALL took place in areas where it was already illegal to have a gun. So passing more laws against guns would not have made the slightest difference.
Some kids and their parents at Columbine said that if responsible adults had been allowed to have guns, the outcome would probably have been far different.
Spend a few short minutes and watch this YouTube video of testimony before Congress.
I should have written that if you are asked to leave and you refuse, you are trespassing. You are not trespassing if you comply with a request to leave.
No, it's not, in most states. South Carolina must be an exception.
In most states, if you carry inside an area that is posted, you haven't committed ANY crime, you have simply violated someone's personal policy.
If they find you out and ask you to leave, you are then trespassing, and that is a crime, of sorts, and they can call the cops. But that has nothing specifically to do with carrying a gun.
There are exceptions. You can't carry in a Post Office or other places that are considered to be Federal territory, because those are exempt from state laws.
"You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged."
You won't get "charged", you'll get kicked out. You haven't committed any crime, you just violated somebody's policy.
Exceptions are Federally-insured banks, because they are considered (improperly) to be Federal property, and not subject to State laws. Same with Post Offices, but in that case they have a legitimate case for calling it Federal property.
"Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock..."
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
"The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target."
That's one reason. The other main reason is the "who decides?" scenario: make the requirements too strict and you would be de-facto limiting availability to only ex-military and the professionally trained. But that isn't workable, because the whole point is that citizens are supposed to be armed, not just the police and military.
Slashdot Mirror
"The meter is not your property and hacking it without authorization is illegal."
If you attach it to the wall of MY home, expect it to get hacked.
Seriously. You attach something to my house that is intended for surveillance (which is in fact what it does), and then have the gall to try to call it unethical if * I * mess with it???
Get real.
In most venues, it doesn't have to be extreme duress, just duress. The essence of the entrapment concept is that you were somehow convinced by authorities to do something that you would not normally do. Theoretically, neither the severity of the crime nor the extremity of the pressure (within reason) are of any import. It is sufficient only that you were tricked.
"Second, most people do not experience those tendencies for extended durations of time."
But that's the thing... true psychopathy is not a temporary reaction to conditions. It is a persistent personality disorder.
Given that, though, your point does call into question the predictive ability of such analyses.
For example, there was a time when I have no doubt that I would have met just about any test's criteria for (the popular understanding of) paranoia. But, as it turned out, there really were people "out to get me". Now that situation has changed, and my behavior is back to... as normal as it will ever get.
At that time, I have little doubt that I could have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and the kicker is that I couldn't prove that my experiences were real (else I would have had the offenders arrested).
Since then, some of them have been arrested, and the others have learned that messing with me was not a good idea. And I can get back to a more-or-less normal life.
I have learned something from that: if you THINK you're going crazy, you probably aren't.
"Well, the test of something's value shouldn't be whether it strikes you as silly."
Yes, it should. Truly silly things are quite valuable.
I am SO tired of this argument.
... but even if those statistics WERE NOT questionable, it doesn't matter, because we have very solid and reliable statistics RIGHT HERE, for... where else? RIGHT HERE.
Dude, the U.S. has been experimenting with one or another form of gun control, in more or less extreme fashion, in various states and municipalities, for around 80 years.
And the statistics (as compiled by THE U.S. GOVERNMENT) over that time, are very clear: it doesn't work.
It might work in Australia (thought it actually didn't) and it might work in England (though it actually didn't)...
It's late, and I am quite literally tired of pointing people at actual factual information. Go to the Department of Justice website. If you know what statistics you are actually looking for, they should not be hard to find. If you can't find them, don't blame me. But I already know what they say.
I see. This escaped my attention, as there hadn't been, in this thread, a "basic" example of entrapment at the time.
Okay, I felt it wrong, but the basic rules of English still say that you strongly implied it. Don't blame me: I didn't make those rules.
"I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude"
Get as tired as you like. Because you haven't even framed the problem properly.
In fact, what YOU are saying, is that "Nobody has found a solution I like, so that's no solution."
Ehhhhhhh..... (sound of buzzer on stage) "Sorry, that's not quite it."
"And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias... "
Dude. You don't read the news. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, about a year and a half ago, maybe two years, that what you are saying is BULLSHIT.
They ruled that there is no question, but the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. They said it in so many words, in their decision that struck down the firearms licensing restrictions in D.C.
Get a clue, man. History says, and the Supreme Court RECENTLY said, right in your face, that you are wrong.
In my personal opinion, it should be exactly as illegal for a policeman to impersonate another citizen as it is for another citizen to impersonate a police officer.
And it should also be (and in most cases it is, but sadly has seldom been enforced) just as illegal for a policeman to commit any crime as it is for another citizen.
Certainly there are important (but very few) exceptions that are necessary for them to be able to perform their jobs. But the key phrase there is "very few".
The problem in a case like that is proving it. But it's definitely entrapment.
That's a massively over-complex example. Here's a simple example of entrapment:
Undercover officer sees a guy on the streetcorner smoking a joint. Cop walks up to guy and says, "Hey, man, got any to sell?" Guy says "No. I don't sell the stuff. Personal use only." Cop says, "Come on, man, I just want a couple of joints to take to a party I'm going to. No big thing. I just don't know anybody around here." Guy says, "No, man. I told you. Go away." Cop says "Come ON, dude. Just two joints. I really need some. I'll give you $20."
Guy sighs and says, "Okay, man. I'm not into this but just this once. Here."
Cop arrests guy for dealing. (Depending on the state, if you sell ANY, it's a misdemeanor. Felony depends on amount.)
That's entrapment. The policeman talked him into doing something he would not normally do, in order to make the bust.
"You would be right if I had ever stated that."
True, you did not say that in so many words. But I felt you strongly implied it here:
"Firearms being illegal in DC does not mean a thing since you can have all you need in Virginia, a mile away."
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides?
Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse?
And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them?
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
"There's no chance that the amendment would have been passed if it was possible to foretell what it would lead to."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, right.
Please note that (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed), the right to bear arms is an individual right, and (as historical documents clearly show) was guaranteed not only because of the fundamental truth that one has a right to defend oneself against aggression, but also from acknowledgment that was possible that aggression could come from our own government.
I frankly don't care if you're terrified of guns. That has no bearing on my right to have one.
Interesting how your citations only lead us to abstracts of papers that cost about $20 each.
Also interesting that all of them cite Hemenway as an author.
I don't want to pull an ad hominem here, but I think it is pretty safe to say that Hemenway has a bit of bias, considering his main occupation.
The abstracts essentially describe meta-analyses, yet appear to come to different conclusions than the people who did the original research (e.g., Kleck and Lock). This causes me to wonder what their criteria are for determining "availability", and other factors.
I also question the relevance of a study of other nations, since it has long been known that the statistics in the United States do not mirror those of other nations.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural. Fixing the cultural problem doesn't require removing the guns.
Though it probably requires removing the Prohibition-type drug laws that seem to spark much of the gun violence (just like the real Prohibition sparked some of the worst gun violence in US history).
Mod up.
Exactly. The vast majority of firearms-related homicide in the U.S. is drug- or gang-related (which are quite often the same thing). It is criminals killing criminals, generally over illegal drug profits (or some other kind of illegal profit, but most of it drugs).
Take away the illegality, you take away the ridiculous profits. Take away the profits, you take away the motive for killing. It sounds simplistic, but our own experience with Prohibition shows it to be true.
"... states with laxer laws don't have lower rates because of their stance, it is their lower rate that prevents development of cultural pressures to demand governmental action."
Which would be true if, in the United States, some cause-effect had not been strongly indicated. Areas that enact firearms restrictions tend to see crime go up. Areas that relax firearms restrictions tend to see crime rates go down.
Prior to some loosening of the firearms restrictions, 20% of homicides in the U.S. occurred in just 4 cities: New York, Detroit, Chicago, and District of Columbia. Their combined population is about 6% of the U.S. And all 4 cities had stringent firearms restrictions.
When licensing requirements for firearms ownership in D.C. were relaxed in 2008 (due to the court decision that it was unconstitutional), the crime rate dropped significantly. And that is not an isolated case... the same sort of thing has happened all over the U.S.
"As a european who have spent the last 3.5 years in the DC metro area, I have my ideas why the murder rate is so high in the DC area. Racial segregation and poverty, with no chance for social ascension, effectively creating ghettos, play a key role. you can bet on it, the murder rate is not driven up by the murders in Georgetown..."
And so you have just invalidated any argument you may have that guns themselves are the cause, because there are so many other reasons.
This is not Europe. No matter how things work there, we have solid statistics from close to 90 years of experience with "gun control" (firearms restrictions) to varying degrees, in various states, at one time or another.
And the statistics are clear: it doesn't work. Not here, in the U.S. Areas that have the most restrictions continue to have the most homicides from firearms. Areas that reduce restrictions see crime rates (including death by firearm) go DOWN.
These are the government's own statistics (Department of Justice).
Over the last 20+ years (close to 30 now), the crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping steadily. Over the same period, private firearm ownership, per capita, has continued to go UP.
Am I saying that more guns cause less crime? No, I am not claiming that. But the statistics clearly prove that more guns DO NOT cause more crime.
Columbine (and all other school shootings in recent years), the massacre in Killeen, Texas, and on and on... they ALL took place in areas where it was already illegal to have a gun. So passing more laws against guns would not have made the slightest difference.
Some kids and their parents at Columbine said that if responsible adults had been allowed to have guns, the outcome would probably have been far different.
Spend a few short minutes and watch this YouTube video of testimony before Congress.
"If a law abiding citizen with CCW gets caught in a private venue with a no-guns policy, they'll be asked to leave, at the worst."
That is true of most states, but according to the people here, apparently Texas and South Carolina are exceptions.
The problem with exceptions of that nature is that they let people effectively decide their own law on an ad-hoc basis.
I should have written that if you are asked to leave and you refuse, you are trespassing. You are not trespassing if you comply with a request to leave.
"... because that is just plain wrong"
No, it's not, in most states. South Carolina must be an exception.
In most states, if you carry inside an area that is posted, you haven't committed ANY crime, you have simply violated someone's personal policy.
If they find you out and ask you to leave, you are then trespassing, and that is a crime, of sorts, and they can call the cops. But that has nothing specifically to do with carrying a gun.
There are exceptions. You can't carry in a Post Office or other places that are considered to be Federal territory, because those are exempt from state laws.
"You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged."
You won't get "charged", you'll get kicked out. You haven't committed any crime, you just violated somebody's policy.
Exceptions are Federally-insured banks, because they are considered (improperly) to be Federal property, and not subject to State laws. Same with Post Offices, but in that case they have a legitimate case for calling it Federal property.
"Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock..."
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
"The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target."
That's one reason. The other main reason is the "who decides?" scenario: make the requirements too strict and you would be de-facto limiting availability to only ex-military and the professionally trained. But that isn't workable, because the whole point is that citizens are supposed to be armed, not just the police and military.