You haven't presented 'facts'. You have presented interpretation and insinuation under the guise of impartiality. Persons like that are almost invariably wedded to their particular viewpoint and not worth the time. I'll pick an exemplar of where I think you are particularly wrong. You'll either minimize my criticism or point out that I didn't respond to the remainder of your laundry list. Boring. BTDT.
That's not quite what GP is referring to. He is referring to government employees being immune, individually, against civil suits. As an example, the cops referred to in this article are likely immune from civil suits as their actions fall under their role as government agents. Sure, you can sue the NYPD, but even if they lose, who gives a shit? NYPD will pass the bills back to the city (?) who will pass it on to the taxpayer, either in the form of increased taxes or decreased services elsewhere. Only in exceptional cases will the asshat in the PD be held liable.
You sounds like a bit of a fool to be honest. Your line of reasoning is something along the lines of:
Someone from a country where something bad is happened is criticizing my country so I must attack him and defend my own country!
That is idiotic and people like you are the reason SWAT teams run rampant. People like you are looking for any excuse to declare that your country as better than anywhere else and further use that as an excuse to feel that everything is OK.
It isn't. Actually try to observe things as they are and compare them to your own moral standards.
Give me a fucking break. 99% of the people on the internet (caution, invented statistic) are tribalistic turds who think their country is better than all the rest.
The panic is that they clearly have no viable plan for participating in the mobile revolution. They have lost control of the platform.
Windows Phone is growing faster in sales than Android and iOS. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
How are you measuring that? Growing from 1 unit sold to 10 units sold yields a more impressive percent gain than moving from 900,000 units sold to 1,000,000 units sold, but who could argue, straight faced, that it's relevant?
It could lead to LESS safety with guns. So with a smart gun people could say "I don't have to worry, it is a smart gun!" and not handle it as safely.
The huge increase in negligent discharges amongst law enforcement following the introduction of Glocks and other handguns lacking a manually operated safety tends to support your supposition. Clearly they had relied in the position of the safety rather than proper handling. (Which explains those going from 1911 to Glock. Did departments going from S&W and other revolvers experience this same increase in NDs?)
Maryland is very close to the situation you describe as your ideal. On paper. The rules are in place for most of what you cite. However, due to prosecutorial discretion, Baltimore City (and some of the urban environs of PGC and MoCo) has one of the worst gun homicide rates in the nation. These crimes are almost invariably committed by recidivist criminals who should have been off the streets years prior for years longer.
The weird thing is during our legislative session this year, we heard from the mayor and the head of the state police and some activists about how we need more gun laws. The only people mentioning the need to enforce laws on the books were the pro gun types. And I guarantee that during elections next year, we will not hear the mayor, the governor, or the head of the state police argue against the re-election of state's attorneys based on them pleaing out gun charges in the past.
TL;dr: Great idea, political assholes will screw it up.
Perfect justification for my suggestion elsewhere: let law enforcement go first. Quite frankly, those statistics are an embarrassment and should be the first evidence to show that exceptions for LEOs should NOT exist in various pieces of gun legislation.
Interesting viewpoint and way at looking at the debates. I would tend to phrase it more along the lines of "to what degree are life and the increased chance of safety more important than what amount of liberty?" but even that phrasing could, I admit, be starting the debate, not 'just' framing it.
Even as you read this, you are wishing that you could jam a gun in my face and make me back down.
You seem to be incredibly confident in your ability to raise an emotional reaction out of your copying and pasting.
Oh, and because one or two people are deranged idiots, doesn't mean that all gun owners are. The biggest problem that gun rights advocates have with the gun control advocates is that most of the gun control advocates don't just hate guns, but hate people that don't hate guns.
Your post reads like that.
I've seen commentary like his many, many, many times. It's actually quite disturbing and makes me wonder about the violent ideation of the speaker. I suspect that it is actually they who have these violent fantasies they ascribe to others. Further, their desire to remove guns universally is because they know they cannot be trusted with such a device.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, not doing this. I'm done.
You haven't presented 'facts'. You have presented interpretation and insinuation under the guise of impartiality. Persons like that are almost invariably wedded to their particular viewpoint and not worth the time. I'll pick an exemplar of where I think you are particularly wrong. You'll either minimize my criticism or point out that I didn't respond to the remainder of your laundry list. Boring. BTDT.
I guess there's no reason to present an counter-argument when you don't have one, eh?
The two minute hate isn't exactly an argument that invites counter-argument.
Purple is a fruit.
That's not quite what GP is referring to. He is referring to government employees being immune, individually, against civil suits. As an example, the cops referred to in this article are likely immune from civil suits as their actions fall under their role as government agents. Sure, you can sue the NYPD, but even if they lose, who gives a shit? NYPD will pass the bills back to the city (?) who will pass it on to the taxpayer, either in the form of increased taxes or decreased services elsewhere. Only in exceptional cases will the asshat in the PD be held liable.
You sounds like a bit of a fool to be honest. Your line of reasoning is something along the lines of:
Someone from a country where something bad is happened is criticizing my country so I must attack him and defend my own country!
That is idiotic and people like you are the reason SWAT teams run rampant. People like you are looking for any excuse to declare that your country as better than anywhere else and further use that as an excuse to feel that everything is OK.
It isn't. Actually try to observe things as they are and compare them to your own moral standards.
Give me a fucking break. 99% of the people on the internet (caution, invented statistic) are tribalistic turds who think their country is better than all the rest.
The IRS needs them when they go after accountants. An accountant cornered with his MS software and a sharp pencil is a vicious beast.
Worried that the Crimson Permanent Assurance will rise up again?
You reject the Aussie shows because you know they are overly edited, but you accept the US and NZ as gospel?
I thought banning lead from automobile fuel was supposed to prevent brain damage as time went on?
That's why she's hiding the porn instead of removing it.
Jokes on her; I fap to this.
Who is this "intrepid conservator" who "kept digging for more evidence" and eventually found "Unit No 2044"???
Give the guy some recognition jeff!
They tend not to give recognition to Top. Men.
The panic is that they clearly have no viable plan for participating in the mobile revolution. They have lost control of the platform.
Windows Phone is growing faster in sales than Android and iOS. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
How are you measuring that? Growing from 1 unit sold to 10 units sold yields a more impressive percent gain than moving from 900,000 units sold to 1,000,000 units sold, but who could argue, straight faced, that it's relevant?
Trademark.
I dunno. 'Bang' when you expected 'click' is no day at the beach either.
It could lead to LESS safety with guns. So with a smart gun people could say "I don't have to worry, it is a smart gun!" and not handle it as safely.
The huge increase in negligent discharges amongst law enforcement following the introduction of Glocks and other handguns lacking a manually operated safety tends to support your supposition. Clearly they had relied in the position of the safety rather than proper handling. (Which explains those going from 1911 to Glock. Did departments going from S&W and other revolvers experience this same increase in NDs?)
Currently every firearm I own will still be functional for my great great great grandkids (as long as someone cares for them with cleaning).
Pee down the barrel of that Mosin, and you're good.
actually there is... White rural Americans does not reproduce the way they used to.
You can thank abortion laws for that.
I thought we were supposed to thank abortion laws for a reduction in urban crime?
Maryland is very close to the situation you describe as your ideal. On paper. The rules are in place for most of what you cite. However, due to prosecutorial discretion, Baltimore City (and some of the urban environs of PGC and MoCo) has one of the worst gun homicide rates in the nation. These crimes are almost invariably committed by recidivist criminals who should have been off the streets years prior for years longer.
The weird thing is during our legislative session this year, we heard from the mayor and the head of the state police and some activists about how we need more gun laws. The only people mentioning the need to enforce laws on the books were the pro gun types. And I guarantee that during elections next year, we will not hear the mayor, the governor, or the head of the state police argue against the re-election of state's attorneys based on them pleaing out gun charges in the past.
TL;dr: Great idea, political assholes will screw it up.
It's cute how hoplophobes discussing gun laws and policy sound so much like **AA discussing copyright and filesharing.
Don't forget his activities in support of Sherman Ware.
An area that's dangerous perhaps because of all the guns?
And little tykes running around with concrete sidewalks.
Perfect justification for my suggestion elsewhere: let law enforcement go first. Quite frankly, those statistics are an embarrassment and should be the first evidence to show that exceptions for LEOs should NOT exist in various pieces of gun legislation.
Interesting viewpoint and way at looking at the debates. I would tend to phrase it more along the lines of "to what degree are life and the increased chance of safety more important than what amount of liberty?" but even that phrasing could, I admit, be starting the debate, not 'just' framing it.
Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really.
Perhaps, but seeing as how we live on the same soil, they would work just fine against the soldiers' wives and cops' kids.
(And no, I'm not suggesting this. Myself and almost everyone in my social groups are at risk of being the victims in this scenario.)
Even as you read this, you are wishing that you could jam a gun in my face and make me back down.
You seem to be incredibly confident in your ability to raise an emotional reaction out of your copying and pasting.
Oh, and because one or two people are deranged idiots, doesn't mean that all gun owners are. The biggest problem that gun rights advocates have with the gun control advocates is that most of the gun control advocates don't just hate guns, but hate people that don't hate guns.
Your post reads like that.
I've seen commentary like his many, many, many times. It's actually quite disturbing and makes me wonder about the violent ideation of the speaker. I suspect that it is actually they who have these violent fantasies they ascribe to others. Further, their desire to remove guns universally is because they know they cannot be trusted with such a device.