I just tested this hypothesis by walking down the street and complimenting each man I passed on how he looked in his jeans. Let me tell you that I have some concern regarding the reproducibility of your results.
Dell probably spent millions on research figuring out what they thought was the magic bullet in marketing a laptop to women. Focus groups, design teams of women, and they might have even found things that a majority of their women customers are interested in.
My wife really liked the decorative laptop covers. I think that's a legitimately good product idea. Most women *do* like pretty things, and they like to personalize their stuff.
What she didn't like was the site. The fashion-show laptop ad, the trivial tech tips... she said she felt those "dumb women down".
I can see you're not married, or haven't been for very long.
No matter how secure your relationship is, all women have moments in which they like to be complimented, even flattered, and no women really like to be told they're fat -- which IS the implication even if you're talking about the jeans. They may be unhappy with their weight, and may buy magazines with diet tips, but that's *their* choice. You are supposed to think they look great.
The best answer, if something really doesn't look good is "I like you in this better..." and then point out something that does look good. Then you're not telling her she's fat, and you're actually taking an interest how she dresses, and you're reaffirming that you like her.
And, yes, women do want to hear that. I've been married for close to 20 years, have seen my wife in the worst moments possible and stuck by her through some really difficult time. She knows that I'm not going anywhere, but she still likes to hear it.
> Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.
Bloodletting.
I've never heard of bloodletting as a "naturopathic" remedy. As far as I can tell, it was a "scientific" remedy, based on the ancient Greek theory of "humours". Science showed it invalid and abandoned it in the late 19th century.
Do you have some evidence that it was used by naturopaths after medical science abandoned it?
If you think that naturopathic practitioners are incapable of learning, there's not much I can do to change your mind, such as it is.
Sure there is. Provide some evidence that it has happened. Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.
Sorry, that study will take twenty years and twenty million dollars. Make checks payable to...
Bullshit. Your attempt to avoid the question is as lame as it is transparent.
Data on vaccine thimerosal content is freely available, as are statistics on childhood innoculation rates and autism diagnoses. If thimerosal causes autism when given to young children, then not injecting thimerosal into kids should reduce autism. If autism continues to increase, then there's some other effect at work, which seriously brings into question whether or not thimerosal ever made any contribution. If it did, the effect was clearly small and dominated by something else.
Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".
Why, then, have autism rates continued to increase as thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
Systems like that (and proofs about them) are a corner of game theory. I guess since it lacks any proof of efficacy it's not valid math and is therefore patentable??
If so, that would mean that if someone mathematically proves (or disproves) that the system meets its goals, then it becomes a mathematical conjecture and therefore unpatentable!
I think I'm going to file a patent on game that achieves its goals if and only if P=NP.
Just to expand a little of my opinion on the topic, if someone is cordial and a police officer oversteps their bounds with them then something needs to be done.
While I think politeness is always the better approach, police have an obligation to follow the law even when people are rude and offensive. If an officer oversteps their bounds something needs to be done regardless of whatever somebody might be saying to them.
When I went through the Air Force Security Police Academy, there was even a sort of zero-notice test of exactly that. You had to prove that you could remain calm and follow proper procedure even when faced with a really obnoxious individual.
As with all "gun rights" arguments, there's a standard qualification: it only applies to "law-abiding citizens". What does that mean, in practical terms? Leaving aside the problem of defining "law-abiding" (does driving too fast disqualify you?) how do I tell whether the guy with the gun is one or not? Should I ask to see a police printout?
Well, in the case of those with concealed carry permits, "law-abiding" means no history of violence, no protective orders, no felonies, no misdemeanors less than a decade or so old, and no significant number of arrests or convictions of any sort, ever. At least in my state. The exact definition varies a bit, but it's along those lines.
Still, your statement flies in the face of simple experience.
What experience are you referring to? There's a wealth of statistical evidence that can provide a solid foundation. For example, consider Texas. The average person is 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for a violent offense than the average permit holder (127 per 100,000 compared to 730 per 100,000) and 14 times more likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses (386 per 100,000 vs 5,212 per 100,000). And when it comes to murder, the numbers are 5.4 murders per 100,000 among the general population and 3.6 among permit holders.
Even more compelling, a wealth of statistical evidence shows that crime rates decline as more citizens acquire permits and begin carrying. As more guns are carried by law-abiding citizens, violent crime rates decline significantly. That decline is partially, but not fully, offset by increases in property crimes -- it appears that an armed populace causes criminals to shift their focus to stealing things when people aren't around. This holds across the nation, all 41 states that issue permits or allow carry without permit, and it holds even when controlled against socio-economic factors and against the nation's overall decline in crime.
So, what experience do YOU have that counters and overrides the statistical data?
An extreme form of which is imposed (or should be imposed) on cops, soldiers, and anyone else whose profession has a potential for employing deadly force.
It's also interesting to note that both soldiers and police have crime rates that are lower than the general population (and about equal), but still significantly *higher* than the crime rates of permit holders. The average permit holder is less likely to hurt you than the average cop.
Similarly, I find it fascinating that cops are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent bystander in a shooting than citizens are. I think most of the difference is the types of situations in which they shoot, but in my experience if you go down to the range you'll find that cops aren't really very good shots -- and those are the ones who like shooting enough to do it on their own time! The others who shoot only for their semi-annual re-qualification are worse.
Here's another data point: suppose Mister Shut-Up-About-911-already had supplemented his iPhone with a gun? Do you think that if somebody that immature would be safe to argue with then? Indeed, the possibility that he might be armed gave the cop an additional reason to arrest him.
I see no reason to believe that it would have been any different at all, assuming it was legal for him to carry. The police might have dithered about for a while longer trying to decide if they could get him on some firearms charge, and they might even have refused to give him back his gun for a few weeks, but that's about the extent of it.
Which is not to lump such folks with hunters and other NRA types who take gun safety very seriously and deserve credit for promoting it. But they also deserve credit for viewing every attempt to curb gun violence (30K deaths a year!) as another step to take away their sacred firearms.
I'm not really sure how it's supposed to be my fault. I've never been in a situation where I would need to challenge some wrong being committed against me. I also support people that do have to challenge the system, and legislation that has a chance of fixing it. The point of my comment was that it is incorrect to assume that "the right way" is the way things are currently done.
I agree with all of this. It seemed to me that you were arguing that one should submit to illegal authority just because it's less painful than the alternative.
Calling me spineless is uncalled for.
Agreed. I apologize.
(Incidentally, Texas is not an open carry state. I've taken the concealed handgun course, but I'm not going to start wearing an exposed gun to protest. I'm also not going to wear one to work where it is illegal in a court of law to protest. There is a proper time, place, and way to oppose laws.)
Certainly, and I wouldn't recommend open-carrying in Texas. I would recommend signing the petition to support it, and writing your representatives, etc.
There are times and places where true civil disobedience -- deliberately and openly breaking the law -- is necessary and right, but only when the legal alternatives fail. What I'm really talking about in the context of this thread isn't civil disobedience, though, it's just exercise of existing rights in order to reaffirm their existence.
Even when you stay within the law, you can still end up pissing off an official who'd like to exercise more authority than the law allows, and that can cost you time, money and perhaps a little more -- precisely because things aren't always as they should be. But it's the only way to make them the way they should be, and worth doing.
All of that is really how it "should be", not so much how it is.
Insofar as you're correct, it's your fault. You and those like you who are unwilling to suffer a little inconvenience for the sake of your civil rights.
Thankfully, there are a few Americans left who have spines.
I'm nearly always armed, but you can feel free to argue with me all you want. I won't draw unless...
Thanks, but no thanks. It doesn't matter was you intend to do in a given situation.
You're wrong about that. If a "nasty thing" happens for irrational reasons, it'll be because you decided to initiate violence and I couldn't get away fast enough, because I'd be trying to de-escalate and escape for all I was worth.
It's difficult to explain why, but if you spend some time talking about the subject various people who choose to regularly carry deadly weapons you'll find a common theme: for the law-abiding person, possession of a deadly weapon is a powerful calming influence.
Now, I'm a pretty level-headed person to begin with. I'm not easily angered, and I calm down very quickly. I've always been one to avoid angry confrontations (though I love a good debate), but even I noticed when I began carrying that my dislike of confrontations increased significantly. When I'm armed I rarely bother to stand up for myself at all -- if you get aggressive with me, I'll apologize whether I had any fault in the matter or not.
I think the reason is twofold. The first is easy to understand: it's the fear that any confrontation may escalate into violence, which could land the guy with the gun in jail for the rest of his life. But that's actually the lesser reason.
The bigger one is psychological. I think to some extent it's the same reason why physically powerful people tend to be gentle while some of the smallest people are also the most aggressive you'll ever meet. A big guy has great confidence that he can handle whatever comes up, so he has no need to try to intimidate, while a little guy has to show everyone that he won't be pushed around. Note that these differences are pretty subtle in everyday interactions, among civilized people they're so subtextual that we often convince ourselves they don't exist.
It's similar when you're armed; the subconscious desire to establish dominance over those around you (as a means of protecting yourself) disappears, because you don't need that self-protection.
Whatever the cause (and the above are just my armchair-psychologist theories), the fact of the matter is that law-abiding citizens who regularly carry firearms are among the most polite and hardest to upset that you'll ever meet. You're far, far less likely to suffer a "nasty thing" in an argument with one than you are with a random person.
The lady had a gun. There are circumstances in which she is authorized to use it. This kind of situation doesn't usually escalate into those circumstances, but it does happen. Which is why the cop cut the conversation short so abruptly.
Personally, I would have cut the conversation even shorter. "Am I free to go?" is about all they'd have gotten out of me.
I make it a rule never to argue with somebody who's armed. I guess that makes me a wimp. I can live with that. "Live" being the operative word.
I'm nearly always armed, but you can feel free to argue with me all you want. I won't draw unless you're threatening me or someone else with imminent serious bodily injury or death. Police have to follow the same rule, regardless of what you see on TV.
What can be patented (but not copyrighted) is the process of performing diagnostic tests on a certain gene. To quote the article:
"Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing."
This is not a good thing, but it does seem to fit within the scope of patents.
Seems overly broad to me. I have no problem with a patent on a specific process of examining a certain gene, but allowing a patent on *any* process of looking for a particular gene seems to go too far.
So, re: your sig: "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety." The cops are there to "protect and serve"; protection is somewhat similar to safety, so are you saying that the cops are tyrants?
Some of them are, certainly.
However, I'd say that the "protect" part of "protect and serve" is inaccurate. Police do serve an important function in deterring crime, but as far as direct protection goes, it's very rare that they do it. Mostly they show up after the fact to draw chalk lines and collect evidence.
The real thrust of my sig, though, is that safety is a great tool for tyrants to use to convince the masses that they should give up their rights in order to be safe. c.f. War on Terror.
Without giving too many details, this fucker lied in his report after he pulled me over. However, I did not have access to weather reports (it was dry, not damp) nor traffic reports (how the fuck could I have been swerving in and out of traffic if there was heavy traffic), so I just took the CWOF.
The cruisers in your area don't have cameras?
So, it's on my record. Later I learned that fighting it would have most likely lost me my license and made it even more on my record.
Who told you that?
I chose not to file a complaint. I do not need some random guy with a gun finding a burglary attempt in my home and shooting the perp, who unfortunately just happened to look like the homeowner.
I notice, meanwhile, you have completely deleted the US Army base example, that showed that a nutter with a gun is not deterred by there being armed people in the neighborhood, nor can they prevent the deaths of victims, nor does the shooter necessarily kill himself. (5 victims dead; shooter still alive.)
That was an oversight on my part, sorry.
That example actually bolsters my argument. As a former military policeman, I can tell you that military bases, and particularly clinics on military bases, are large gun-free zones. Yes, there are many guns present, but except for the arms carried by the MPs or, in this case, armed patrols heading out or returning, they're all locked up in armories.
So you've just cited another example of how dangerous gun-free zones are, and why nutters exploit them to kill unarmed people. This particular nutter chose to do it in the one location on base furthest from any armed response.
Meanwhile, I notice that YOU have dropped the DC sniper example. Why?
Given that removing the guns is neither practical nor moral,
Neither of which are given -- non-US countries manage it pretty darn well (even with the temporary issue of guns from the eastern EU) and have orders of magnitude fewer gun crimes as a result.
I'll take the moral part first.
The US has more knife crimes than most nations have violent crimes total. The high rate of violence in the US is a result of a violent culture, not the presence of guns. Given the violent culture, it's immoral to refuse citizens the opportunity to carry defensive tools.
Between 100,000 and two million US citizens per year (depending on the source of the estimates) defend themselves with firearms. Around 95% of those defensive incidents don't involve a single shot being fired; merely presenting the weapon is nearly always sufficient to end the encounter.
As for the practical part... the US population owns over 100 million firearms, only about 10% of them listed on any registry. Even if the constitution were amended to allow banning, and all firearms were banned it would be impossible to round those weapons up. Most police and military forces would actively refuse to try, both because the individual members consider it wrong and because they know they'd face armed resistance.
But none of that will happen. At present, polls show that support for individual firearms ownership is the highest it's been in 60 years. Several states are on the verge of passing legislation similar to Utah's, specifically authorizing concealed carry on university campuses, to prevent another VA Tech. Only two states still deny their citizens any way to legally carry a firearm, and both are close to changing their laws. The reason they're doing it is because the statistical evidence is indisputable: violence decreases when law-abiding people are armed.
So you believe that routinely carrying equipment to kill 27 people into, say, a shopping mall is a civil thing to do, and are prepared to use it at any moment.
Absolutely. Since you discount statistical evidence as to the positive effects of my behavior, how about an anecdote?
Not far from my home is a shopping mall where five people were killed by a gunman in 2007. He was stopped by an off-duty police officer who happened to be present, and armed, or it would have been worse.
A friend of mine was there at the mall that evening, eating at a restaurant with his family. He and his wife were both armed. When they heard the shots, they quickly spoke with the restaurant manager and got all the other patrons herded into a back room, while this friend and his wife got out their weapons and took up defensive positions covering the entrances.
The gunman never chose to enter that restaurant, so my friend and his wife didn't have to shoot him.
1. There are any number of mundane and ambiguously worded laws that they can use to arrest you resulting in fines or jail time.
A fact that we as citizens should be concerned about, and try to fix.
In practice, however, there are very few that apply when you're just going about your business in a store. It's extremely easy for them to find something to cite you with while you're driving, but not so easy when you're walking.
I'm not just blowing smoke about something I don't know, here, either. I'm a bit of a firearms activist, and frequently go around town with an openly-carried sidearm -- something that is perfectly legal in most states, but something that seems to really annoy a small percentage of police (oddly, rookies and brass -- experienced street cops tend to approve of it). I personally have never been stopped by the police, but I know many people who have been stopped by cops who really, really want to find something to slap them down.
Not one has succeeded. One friend was charged with disorderly conduct, but the DA declined to prosecute.
2. There is a lot that an officer can do that is rather harassing, but perfectly within their legal rights to do. For instance, the ATM photo guy, they could go around and ask all of his neighbors about him, and if he's been known to have been involved in any thefts or illegal activities. It can be inconvenient for all of your neighbors to suddenly suspect the worst of you.
If police do that to you, then you can file a lawsuit for harassment, and you have a good shot at winning. Even if you don't win, you'll drag the department's name through the mud (the press loves to cover that kind of thing). As for the lawsuit, the police officers in question had better be able to come up with a convincing rationale for their activities, some reason that they suspect you of some sort of crime. If not, the department is almost certainly going to have to come up with some cash to make the suit go away. In any case, the career of the officer in question is going to be damaged.
Our country is not yet so far gone that a citizen who knows his or her rights and is willing to invest a little time and money has to cower before a badge. And as long as there are some who will refuse to cower, we can keep it that way.
There is no legal requirement to be nice to police officers (or anyone else around you), but you may find your life a lot better if you do.
I'm always nice to everyone around me, and exceptionally polite to police officers. Doesn't mean I'll let them detain me or answer their questions, though.
I don't think that was his point. He wouldn't be "okay" with it, but you have to weigh your odds of winning against an armed cop, who probably called in 5 of his buddies for backup. Better to just cooperate silently, rather than yell and throw a temper tantrum. After you get released, then you can strike back (with a lawsuit).
Who said anything about temper tantrums or yelling? You should be perfectly polite, and comply with every order given you by a police officer, but you should ask if you're free to go and continue asking until you get an answer. If the answer is "yes", then leave. If the answer is "no", then shut up.
And, yes, you should file at least a complaint, and perhaps a lawsuit.
when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom
Police officers are not authorized to use deadly force, or to deprive you of your freedom. To do either, they need justification, and in the case of deadly force those justifications are no different from what a private citizen needs.
they're little more than a private citizen, they need clear cause to draw their weapon on you
Just to be clear, police officers also need a clear cause to draw their weapon on you. And, actually, the valid causes are no different for police, security guards or Joe Blow. In practice, police get a little more latitude for merely drawing, but if they point a gun at you without good reason, it's aggravated assault, just as if they were a private citizen.
I did 1 and 3. I decided I didn't want to deal with the police. I guess that was my mistake since I didn't get a response from Brinks.
If someone points a gun at you, call 911. Get the real police there to sort it out, and to arrest the guy who just committed aggravated assault (which is a felony). Then tell them you want to press charges. Also, ask the police if there's something you need to do to file a complaint with the armed security licensing board, or if they'll be notified automatically.
The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened.
Also -- even more important than pissing your pants -- is to *immediately* dial 911, as soon as the gun is no longer pointed at you.
The specifics vary from state to state, but in general pointing a gun at someone is some form of aggravated assault. Get the real police there, get them to *arrest* him and then ask to press charges.
I'm usually armed, too. So what? You think they're going to shoot you for smarting off?
Second, they have the authority to detain you (granted they will need to figure out something if they want to keep you but they can interrupt your day)
No, they don't have the authority to detain you. Not without reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a specific crime. Lacking that suspicion -- and they have to be able to say exactly what it is, and why -- they have no more authority to detain you than any random person does. Whether they have a gun or not.
and third, their job sucks for the most part.
So where do people come off with the idea that it is OK to be anything but polite with them?
Okay, now this we agree on. It's a good idea to be polite, to everyone. It costs you nothing and makes everyone's day a little better. And cops' job *does* suck.
Where we differ, I think, is what being polite means. When dealing with a police officer, to me politeness means keeping a calm, pleasant tone of voice, not being sarcastic or rude, saying sir (or ma'am, as appropriate), not using profanity, etc.
But politeness does not extend to answering any questions I don't legally have to. And I know what I do and do not have to answer, and I know what they are and are not allowed to do. If they cross the line, I'll politely get their name and badge number and file a complaint afterwards (I won't tell them I'm filing a complaint, though, that might be impolite -- and it's pointless besides).
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, men like to hear it, too.
I just tested this hypothesis by walking down the street and complimenting each man I passed on how he looked in his jeans. Let me tell you that I have some concern regarding the reproducibility of your results.
Dude, you owe me a new keyboard.
Dell probably spent millions on research figuring out what they thought was the magic bullet in marketing a laptop to women. Focus groups, design teams of women, and they might have even found things that a majority of their women customers are interested in.
My wife really liked the decorative laptop covers. I think that's a legitimately good product idea. Most women *do* like pretty things, and they like to personalize their stuff.
What she didn't like was the site. The fashion-show laptop ad, the trivial tech tips... she said she felt those "dumb women down".
I can see you're not married, or haven't been for very long.
No matter how secure your relationship is, all women have moments in which they like to be complimented, even flattered, and no women really like to be told they're fat -- which IS the implication even if you're talking about the jeans. They may be unhappy with their weight, and may buy magazines with diet tips, but that's *their* choice. You are supposed to think they look great.
The best answer, if something really doesn't look good is "I like you in this better..." and then point out something that does look good. Then you're not telling her she's fat, and you're actually taking an interest how she dresses, and you're reaffirming that you like her.
And, yes, women do want to hear that. I've been married for close to 20 years, have seen my wife in the worst moments possible and stuck by her through some really difficult time. She knows that I'm not going anywhere, but she still likes to hear it.
Heck, men like to hear it, too.
> Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.
Bloodletting.
I've never heard of bloodletting as a "naturopathic" remedy. As far as I can tell, it was a "scientific" remedy, based on the ancient Greek theory of "humours". Science showed it invalid and abandoned it in the late 19th century.
Do you have some evidence that it was used by naturopaths after medical science abandoned it?
If you think that naturopathic practitioners are incapable of learning, there's not much I can do to change your mind, such as it is.
Sure there is. Provide some evidence that it has happened. Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.
Sorry, that study will take twenty years and twenty million dollars. Make checks payable to...
Bullshit. Your attempt to avoid the question is as lame as it is transparent.
Data on vaccine thimerosal content is freely available, as are statistics on childhood innoculation rates and autism diagnoses. If thimerosal causes autism when given to young children, then not injecting thimerosal into kids should reduce autism. If autism continues to increase, then there's some other effect at work, which seriously brings into question whether or not thimerosal ever made any contribution. If it did, the effect was clearly small and dominated by something else.
Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".
Why, then, have autism rates continued to increase as thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19
Systems like that (and proofs about them) are a corner of game theory. I guess since it lacks any proof of efficacy it's not valid math and is therefore patentable??
If so, that would mean that if someone mathematically proves (or disproves) that the system meets its goals, then it becomes a mathematical conjecture and therefore unpatentable!
I think I'm going to file a patent on game that achieves its goals if and only if P=NP.
Just to expand a little of my opinion on the topic, if someone is cordial and a police officer oversteps their bounds with them then something needs to be done.
While I think politeness is always the better approach, police have an obligation to follow the law even when people are rude and offensive. If an officer oversteps their bounds something needs to be done regardless of whatever somebody might be saying to them.
When I went through the Air Force Security Police Academy, there was even a sort of zero-notice test of exactly that. You had to prove that you could remain calm and follow proper procedure even when faced with a really obnoxious individual.
As with all "gun rights" arguments, there's a standard qualification: it only applies to "law-abiding citizens". What does that mean, in practical terms? Leaving aside the problem of defining "law-abiding" (does driving too fast disqualify you?) how do I tell whether the guy with the gun is one or not? Should I ask to see a police printout?
Well, in the case of those with concealed carry permits, "law-abiding" means no history of violence, no protective orders, no felonies, no misdemeanors less than a decade or so old, and no significant number of arrests or convictions of any sort, ever. At least in my state. The exact definition varies a bit, but it's along those lines.
Still, your statement flies in the face of simple experience.
What experience are you referring to? There's a wealth of statistical evidence that can provide a solid foundation. For example, consider Texas. The average person is 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for a violent offense than the average permit holder (127 per 100,000 compared to 730 per 100,000) and 14 times more likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses (386 per 100,000 vs 5,212 per 100,000). And when it comes to murder, the numbers are 5.4 murders per 100,000 among the general population and 3.6 among permit holders.
Even more compelling, a wealth of statistical evidence shows that crime rates decline as more citizens acquire permits and begin carrying. As more guns are carried by law-abiding citizens, violent crime rates decline significantly. That decline is partially, but not fully, offset by increases in property crimes -- it appears that an armed populace causes criminals to shift their focus to stealing things when people aren't around. This holds across the nation, all 41 states that issue permits or allow carry without permit, and it holds even when controlled against socio-economic factors and against the nation's overall decline in crime.
So, what experience do YOU have that counters and overrides the statistical data?
An extreme form of which is imposed (or should be imposed) on cops, soldiers, and anyone else whose profession has a potential for employing deadly force.
It's also interesting to note that both soldiers and police have crime rates that are lower than the general population (and about equal), but still significantly *higher* than the crime rates of permit holders. The average permit holder is less likely to hurt you than the average cop.
Similarly, I find it fascinating that cops are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent bystander in a shooting than citizens are. I think most of the difference is the types of situations in which they shoot, but in my experience if you go down to the range you'll find that cops aren't really very good shots -- and those are the ones who like shooting enough to do it on their own time! The others who shoot only for their semi-annual re-qualification are worse.
Here's another data point: suppose Mister Shut-Up-About-911-already had supplemented his iPhone with a gun? Do you think that if somebody that immature would be safe to argue with then? Indeed, the possibility that he might be armed gave the cop an additional reason to arrest him.
I see no reason to believe that it would have been any different at all, assuming it was legal for him to carry. The police might have dithered about for a while longer trying to decide if they could get him on some firearms charge, and they might even have refused to give him back his gun for a few weeks, but that's about the extent of it.
Which is not to lump such folks with hunters and other NRA types who take gun safety very seriously and deserve credit for promoting it. But they also deserve credit for viewing every attempt to curb gun violence (30K deaths a year!) as another step to take away their sacred firearms.
It's intellectually dishonest to focus o
I'm not really sure how it's supposed to be my fault. I've never been in a situation where I would need to challenge some wrong being committed against me. I also support people that do have to challenge the system, and legislation that has a chance of fixing it. The point of my comment was that it is incorrect to assume that "the right way" is the way things are currently done.
I agree with all of this. It seemed to me that you were arguing that one should submit to illegal authority just because it's less painful than the alternative.
Calling me spineless is uncalled for.
Agreed. I apologize.
(Incidentally, Texas is not an open carry state. I've taken the concealed handgun course, but I'm not going to start wearing an exposed gun to protest. I'm also not going to wear one to work where it is illegal in a court of law to protest. There is a proper time, place, and way to oppose laws.)
Certainly, and I wouldn't recommend open-carrying in Texas. I would recommend signing the petition to support it, and writing your representatives, etc.
There are times and places where true civil disobedience -- deliberately and openly breaking the law -- is necessary and right, but only when the legal alternatives fail. What I'm really talking about in the context of this thread isn't civil disobedience, though, it's just exercise of existing rights in order to reaffirm their existence.
Even when you stay within the law, you can still end up pissing off an official who'd like to exercise more authority than the law allows, and that can cost you time, money and perhaps a little more -- precisely because things aren't always as they should be. But it's the only way to make them the way they should be, and worth doing.
All of that is really how it "should be", not so much how it is.
Insofar as you're correct, it's your fault. You and those like you who are unwilling to suffer a little inconvenience for the sake of your civil rights.
Thankfully, there are a few Americans left who have spines.
I'm nearly always armed, but you can feel free to argue with me all you want. I won't draw unless...
Thanks, but no thanks. It doesn't matter was you intend to do in a given situation.
You're wrong about that. If a "nasty thing" happens for irrational reasons, it'll be because you decided to initiate violence and I couldn't get away fast enough, because I'd be trying to de-escalate and escape for all I was worth.
It's difficult to explain why, but if you spend some time talking about the subject various people who choose to regularly carry deadly weapons you'll find a common theme: for the law-abiding person, possession of a deadly weapon is a powerful calming influence.
Now, I'm a pretty level-headed person to begin with. I'm not easily angered, and I calm down very quickly. I've always been one to avoid angry confrontations (though I love a good debate), but even I noticed when I began carrying that my dislike of confrontations increased significantly. When I'm armed I rarely bother to stand up for myself at all -- if you get aggressive with me, I'll apologize whether I had any fault in the matter or not.
I think the reason is twofold. The first is easy to understand: it's the fear that any confrontation may escalate into violence, which could land the guy with the gun in jail for the rest of his life. But that's actually the lesser reason.
The bigger one is psychological. I think to some extent it's the same reason why physically powerful people tend to be gentle while some of the smallest people are also the most aggressive you'll ever meet. A big guy has great confidence that he can handle whatever comes up, so he has no need to try to intimidate, while a little guy has to show everyone that he won't be pushed around. Note that these differences are pretty subtle in everyday interactions, among civilized people they're so subtextual that we often convince ourselves they don't exist.
It's similar when you're armed; the subconscious desire to establish dominance over those around you (as a means of protecting yourself) disappears, because you don't need that self-protection.
Whatever the cause (and the above are just my armchair-psychologist theories), the fact of the matter is that law-abiding citizens who regularly carry firearms are among the most polite and hardest to upset that you'll ever meet. You're far, far less likely to suffer a "nasty thing" in an argument with one than you are with a random person.
The lady had a gun. There are circumstances in which she is authorized to use it. This kind of situation doesn't usually escalate into those circumstances, but it does happen. Which is why the cop cut the conversation short so abruptly.
Personally, I would have cut the conversation even shorter. "Am I free to go?" is about all they'd have gotten out of me.
I make it a rule never to argue with somebody who's armed. I guess that makes me a wimp. I can live with that. "Live" being the operative word.
I'm nearly always armed, but you can feel free to argue with me all you want. I won't draw unless you're threatening me or someone else with imminent serious bodily injury or death. Police have to follow the same rule, regardless of what you see on TV.
saying sir (or ma'am, as appropriate)
Okay, I disagree with you there.
YOU are sir (or ma'am) to THEM. They are called "civil servants" for a reason.
Calling them "sir" switches the subconscious "balance of power" to them, and you do not want that. Call them "Officer".
I expect them to say "sir" to me, so me saying "sir" to them as well just puts us on the same level, as it should be.
Besides, as a former soldier I have much more practice at saying "sir" and making it imply "idiot", when needed ;-)
What can be patented (but not copyrighted) is the process of performing diagnostic tests on a certain gene. To quote the article:
"Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing."
This is not a good thing, but it does seem to fit within the scope of patents.
Seems overly broad to me. I have no problem with a patent on a specific process of examining a certain gene, but allowing a patent on *any* process of looking for a particular gene seems to go too far.
So, re: your sig: "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety." The cops are there to "protect and serve"; protection is somewhat similar to safety, so are you saying that the cops are tyrants?
Some of them are, certainly.
However, I'd say that the "protect" part of "protect and serve" is inaccurate. Police do serve an important function in deterring crime, but as far as direct protection goes, it's very rare that they do it. Mostly they show up after the fact to draw chalk lines and collect evidence.
The real thrust of my sig, though, is that safety is a great tool for tyrants to use to convince the masses that they should give up their rights in order to be safe. c.f. War on Terror.
Without giving too many details, this fucker lied in his report after he pulled me over. However, I did not have access to weather reports (it was dry, not damp) nor traffic reports (how the fuck could I have been swerving in and out of traffic if there was heavy traffic), so I just took the CWOF.
The cruisers in your area don't have cameras?
So, it's on my record. Later I learned that fighting it would have most likely lost me my license and made it even more on my record.
Who told you that?
I chose not to file a complaint. I do not need some random guy with a gun finding a burglary attempt in my home and shooting the perp, who unfortunately just happened to look like the homeowner.
Huh? What are you talking about?
I notice, meanwhile, you have completely deleted the US Army base example, that showed that a nutter with a gun is not deterred by there being armed people in the neighborhood, nor can they prevent the deaths of victims, nor does the shooter necessarily kill himself. (5 victims dead; shooter still alive.)
That was an oversight on my part, sorry.
That example actually bolsters my argument. As a former military policeman, I can tell you that military bases, and particularly clinics on military bases, are large gun-free zones. Yes, there are many guns present, but except for the arms carried by the MPs or, in this case, armed patrols heading out or returning, they're all locked up in armories.
So you've just cited another example of how dangerous gun-free zones are, and why nutters exploit them to kill unarmed people. This particular nutter chose to do it in the one location on base furthest from any armed response.
Meanwhile, I notice that YOU have dropped the DC sniper example. Why?
Given that removing the guns is neither practical nor moral,
Neither of which are given -- non-US countries manage it pretty darn well (even with the temporary issue of guns from the eastern EU) and have orders of magnitude fewer gun crimes as a result.
I'll take the moral part first.
The US has more knife crimes than most nations have violent crimes total. The high rate of violence in the US is a result of a violent culture, not the presence of guns. Given the violent culture, it's immoral to refuse citizens the opportunity to carry defensive tools.
Between 100,000 and two million US citizens per year (depending on the source of the estimates) defend themselves with firearms. Around 95% of those defensive incidents don't involve a single shot being fired; merely presenting the weapon is nearly always sufficient to end the encounter.
As for the practical part... the US population owns over 100 million firearms, only about 10% of them listed on any registry. Even if the constitution were amended to allow banning, and all firearms were banned it would be impossible to round those weapons up. Most police and military forces would actively refuse to try, both because the individual members consider it wrong and because they know they'd face armed resistance.
But none of that will happen. At present, polls show that support for individual firearms ownership is the highest it's been in 60 years. Several states are on the verge of passing legislation similar to Utah's, specifically authorizing concealed carry on university campuses, to prevent another VA Tech. Only two states still deny their citizens any way to legally carry a firearm, and both are close to changing their laws. The reason they're doing it is because the statistical evidence is indisputable: violence decreases when law-abiding people are armed.
So you believe that routinely carrying equipment to kill 27 people into, say, a shopping mall is a civil thing to do, and are prepared to use it at any moment.
Absolutely. Since you discount statistical evidence as to the positive effects of my behavior, how about an anecdote?
Not far from my home is a shopping mall where five people were killed by a gunman in 2007. He was stopped by an off-duty police officer who happened to be present, and armed, or it would have been worse.
A friend of mine was there at the mall that evening, eating at a restaurant with his family. He and his wife were both armed. When they heard the shots, they quickly spoke with the restaurant manager and got all the other patrons herded into a back room, while this friend and his wife got out their weapons and took up defensive positions covering the entrances.
The gunman never chose to enter that restaurant, so my friend and his wife didn't have to shoot him.
1. There are any number of mundane and ambiguously worded laws that they can use to arrest you resulting in fines or jail time.
A fact that we as citizens should be concerned about, and try to fix.
In practice, however, there are very few that apply when you're just going about your business in a store. It's extremely easy for them to find something to cite you with while you're driving, but not so easy when you're walking.
I'm not just blowing smoke about something I don't know, here, either. I'm a bit of a firearms activist, and frequently go around town with an openly-carried sidearm -- something that is perfectly legal in most states, but something that seems to really annoy a small percentage of police (oddly, rookies and brass -- experienced street cops tend to approve of it). I personally have never been stopped by the police, but I know many people who have been stopped by cops who really, really want to find something to slap them down.
Not one has succeeded. One friend was charged with disorderly conduct, but the DA declined to prosecute.
2. There is a lot that an officer can do that is rather harassing, but perfectly within their legal rights to do. For instance, the ATM photo guy, they could go around and ask all of his neighbors about him, and if he's been known to have been involved in any thefts or illegal activities. It can be inconvenient for all of your neighbors to suddenly suspect the worst of you.
If police do that to you, then you can file a lawsuit for harassment, and you have a good shot at winning. Even if you don't win, you'll drag the department's name through the mud (the press loves to cover that kind of thing). As for the lawsuit, the police officers in question had better be able to come up with a convincing rationale for their activities, some reason that they suspect you of some sort of crime. If not, the department is almost certainly going to have to come up with some cash to make the suit go away. In any case, the career of the officer in question is going to be damaged.
Our country is not yet so far gone that a citizen who knows his or her rights and is willing to invest a little time and money has to cower before a badge. And as long as there are some who will refuse to cower, we can keep it that way.
There is no legal requirement to be nice to police officers (or anyone else around you), but you may find your life a lot better if you do.
I'm always nice to everyone around me, and exceptionally polite to police officers. Doesn't mean I'll let them detain me or answer their questions, though.
I don't think that was his point. He wouldn't be "okay" with it, but you have to weigh your odds of winning against an armed cop, who probably called in 5 of his buddies for backup. Better to just cooperate silently, rather than yell and throw a temper tantrum. After you get released, then you can strike back (with a lawsuit).
Who said anything about temper tantrums or yelling? You should be perfectly polite, and comply with every order given you by a police officer, but you should ask if you're free to go and continue asking until you get an answer. If the answer is "yes", then leave. If the answer is "no", then shut up.
And, yes, you should file at least a complaint, and perhaps a lawsuit.
when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom
Police officers are not authorized to use deadly force, or to deprive you of your freedom. To do either, they need justification, and in the case of deadly force those justifications are no different from what a private citizen needs.
they're little more than a private citizen, they need clear cause to draw their weapon on you
Just to be clear, police officers also need a clear cause to draw their weapon on you. And, actually, the valid causes are no different for police, security guards or Joe Blow. In practice, police get a little more latitude for merely drawing, but if they point a gun at you without good reason, it's aggravated assault, just as if they were a private citizen.
I did 1 and 3. I decided I didn't want to deal with the police. I guess that was my mistake since I didn't get a response from Brinks.
If someone points a gun at you, call 911. Get the real police there to sort it out, and to arrest the guy who just committed aggravated assault (which is a felony). Then tell them you want to press charges. Also, ask the police if there's something you need to do to file a complaint with the armed security licensing board, or if they'll be notified automatically.
There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened.
Also -- even more important than pissing your pants -- is to *immediately* dial 911, as soon as the gun is no longer pointed at you.
The specifics vary from state to state, but in general pointing a gun at someone is some form of aggravated assault. Get the real police there, get them to *arrest* him and then ask to press charges.
being a smartass to a law officer?
First, they are usually armed.
I'm usually armed, too. So what? You think they're going to shoot you for smarting off?
Second, they have the authority to detain you (granted they will need to figure out something if they want to keep you but they can interrupt your day)
No, they don't have the authority to detain you. Not without reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a specific crime. Lacking that suspicion -- and they have to be able to say exactly what it is, and why -- they have no more authority to detain you than any random person does. Whether they have a gun or not.
and third, their job sucks for the most part.
So where do people come off with the idea that it is OK to be anything but polite with them?
Okay, now this we agree on. It's a good idea to be polite, to everyone. It costs you nothing and makes everyone's day a little better. And cops' job *does* suck.
Where we differ, I think, is what being polite means. When dealing with a police officer, to me politeness means keeping a calm, pleasant tone of voice, not being sarcastic or rude, saying sir (or ma'am, as appropriate), not using profanity, etc.
But politeness does not extend to answering any questions I don't legally have to. And I know what I do and do not have to answer, and I know what they are and are not allowed to do. If they cross the line, I'll politely get their name and badge number and file a complaint afterwards (I won't tell them I'm filing a complaint, though, that might be impolite -- and it's pointless besides).