Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Solifuge]

Even mail carriers are not safe....

Sounds like the officers should be given a summons for disorderly conduct, not the mailman.....

"the matter is under internal review."

Yeah, great. I bet they'll totally hold themselves accountable for being racially-profiling ego-driven human feces, too.

I wonder why it is, when you let people investigate themselves, that they never seem to be held accountable for anything.

[Reelya]

Got reminded of the Fox News legal expert who said that when he was working for the D.A's office, it was "standard operating procedure" for cops to carry illegal guns around, then they could plant them on anyone they accidentally killed, to claim the person was armed and dangerous. We're talking mid 90's here, but I doubt it's magically changed from then, it's not like the Clinton era was the stone age or anything.

Let me tell you, the host of that Fox News show tried to change the subject really fast after that. I wonder if they still invite that guest onto Fox?

[SalmonGod]

Got reminded of the Fox News legal expert who said that when he was working for the D.A's office, it was "standard operating procedure" for cops to carry illegal guns around, then they could plant them on anyone they accidentally killed, to claim the person was armed and dangerous.

Let me tell you, the host of that Fox News show tried to change the subject really fast after that. I wonder if they still invite that guest onto Fox?

War vets have said the exact same about Iraq & Afghanistan.

[Solifuge]

Why am I not surprised.

Pardon the military tangent but just pair that with the legislation that legally classifies all persons who happen to be in a drone strike-zone at the time of the strike as militants, and thus magically makes them valid targets regardless of whether they actually had any enemy affiliation. Does wonders to help them avoid responsibility for drone-based collateral murder of civilians worldwide.

There's a lot of overlap between how police abuse power here, and how the military abuses it abroad.

[SalmonGod]

Why am I not surprised.

Pardon the military tangent but just pair that with the legislation that legally classifies all persons who happen to be in a drone strike-zone at the time of the strike as militants, and thus magically makes them valid targets regardless of whether they actually had any enemy affiliation. Does wonders to help them avoid responsibility for drone-based collateral murder of civilians worldwide.

There's a lot of overlap between how police abuse power here, and how the military abuses it abroad.

I know that this mode of thinking quickly gets one branded a "conspiracy theorist", so I'll preface this with the reminder that it doesn't take secret illuminati organizations and shit like that for a class of people to promote mutual self-interests.  I'm probably still opening a can of worms here.

But I've always regarded military and law enforcement as basically domestic and international divisions of the same sociological forces in action (normalization of conquest and occupation), bound together if nothing else by their shared fine line relationship with the third division -- intelligence.  Excusing the existence of military as necessary for defense against other militaries is basically the same as arguing that guns make the world safer.  They exist because they benefit specific people.  And modern policing arose from a merged evolution of slave patrols and mercenary union busters.

Spoiler: "We shoot at you" - One tier, not two (click to show/hide)

[Sheb]

Excusing the existence of military as necessary for defense against other militaries is basically the same as arguing that guns make the world safer.

Well, it's a prisoner's dilemma. The world would be a better place if no one had armies. But if the other side has an army, I'd rather have one too.

The parallels with guns doesn't quite work, because in the case of gun controls you have an entity (the government) who can in theory make sure no one has guns. There is nothing like that for states and armies. (And I'm not eve getting into non-states actors that require a military response).

[Morrigi]

Why am I not surprised.

Pardon the military tangent but just pair that with the legislation that legally classifies all persons who happen to be in a drone strike-zone at the time of the strike as militants, and thus magically makes them valid targets regardless of whether they actually had any enemy affiliation. Does wonders to help them avoid responsibility for drone-based collateral murder of civilians worldwide.

There's a lot of overlap between how police abuse power here, and how the military abuses it abroad.

Wow, the Russian and American militaries are actually on the same page regarding civilians killed in airstrikes, or the lack thereof. Never thought I'd ever see that.

[Reelya]

Excusing the existence of military as necessary for defense against other militaries is basically the same as arguing that guns make the world safer.

Well, it's a prisoner's dilemma. The world would be a better place if no one had armies. But if the other side has an army, I'd rather have one too.

The parallels with guns doesn't quite work, because in the case of gun controls you have an entity (the government) who can in theory make sure no one has guns. There is nothing like that for states and armies. (And I'm not eve getting into non-states actors that require a military response).

Criminals in England have resorted to using 19th century antique firearms. While it's a "told ya so" in one way, in that the criminals have found a way to get guns, it's also a "told ya so" for the gun control people: banning guns really is keeping proper guns out of the hands of criminals. In some cases, bullets in extremely disparate cases in England can be shown to have all come from the same gun. i.e. there is an extremely limited pool of illegal weapons and they get passed around to whichever gang needs a gun. While of course, this shows on the one hand that criminals are compensating for the lack of guns, the very fact that e.g. 6 crime gangs only have 1 gun between them is also a cause for comfort.

So, in England, gun control is having the desired effect: the difficulty of gangs having guns means that other people don't need guns as much, which fuels a downward spiral of gun availability, to the point that criminals resort to stealing antique weapons. Clearly, the supply of antique pistols is a limited resource, and a few years down the track, what are they going to do then?

In the case of armies, it's always been the case that the guy with the biggest army is the one most reluctant to go for unilateral disarmament. e.g. the Soviets under Krushchev wanted disarmament talks with the USA, but the USA was like "No chance".

[Sheb]

I even remember reading a case where two rivals british gang were using the samel pistol in the gang war, both renting it from the same middleman for the occasional drive-by shooting.

[SalmonGod]

Excusing the existence of military as necessary for defense against other militaries is basically the same as arguing that guns make the world safer.

Well, it's a prisoner's dilemma. The world would be a better place if no one had armies. But if the other side has an army, I'd rather have one too.

The parallels with guns doesn't quite work, because in the case of gun controls you have an entity (the government) who can in theory make sure no one has guns. There is nothing like that for states and armies. (And I'm not eve getting into non-states actors that require a military response).

I think it does work, but in an inverse fashion.  A gun exists by craft.  An army exists by participation.  And people participate because they're convinced that they must to protect themselves against the other.  But if the other is made up of people who are participating for the same reason, then it's self-fulfilling prophecy.  One that is crafted to benefit specific people.  The governing body that has the power to take away armies is people, by simply not participating.  But they don't because they're convinced by an argument that is remarkably similar to guns making the world safer.

[Sheb]

A) I'd love to see North Koreans simply refusing to join the army.

B) You're missing one point. Prisoner's dilemma, such as "should I get a gun", or "should my country have an army" needs to have mechanisms that build trusts between parties, or some kind of enforcement mechanism. Within a country, there is one governing body that can take guns from every party in the game(and even then, it's not perfect, so we have an armed group - the police - for enforcement). There is no equivalent thing for states. I want Belgium to have an army because Russia has one. And Russia (and the Russian people) wants a be in army because the West have one. If one side disarm unilateraly, that side is screwed (and I'm not even saying we'd see US tanks parading in the streets of Moscow, but the side with an armed force would definitely be in a position of strength.)
 
Sure, I'd prefer for no-one to have an army (and keep in mind that would need to include guys like ISIS too). But it's something that can only be done slowly, by mutual diplomacy, and is hampered by the fact that every side is going to try to benefit by getting the other to disarm more than it does.

[scriver]

Criminals in England have resorted to using 19th century antique firearms. While it's a "told ya so" in one way, in that the criminals have found a way to get guns, it's also a "told ya so" for the gun control people: banning guns really is keeping proper guns out of the hands of criminals. In some cases, bullets in extremely disparate cases in England can be shown to have all come from the same gun. i.e. there is an extremely limited pool of illegal weapons and they get passed around to whichever gang needs a gun. While of course, this shows on the one hand that criminals are compensating for the lack of guns, the very fact that e.g. 6 crime gangs only have 1 gun between them is also a cause for comfort.

So, in England, gun control is having the desired effect: the difficulty of gangs having guns means that other people don't need guns as much, which fuels a downward spiral of gun availability, to the point that criminals resort to stealing antique weapons. Clearly, the supply of antique pistols is a limited resource, and a few years down the track, what are they going to do then?

In the case of armies, it's always been the case that the guy with the biggest army is the one most reluctant to go for unilateral disarmament. e.g. the Soviets under Krushchev wanted disarmament talks with the USA, but the USA was like "No chance".

I think it is a bit too optimistic to assume they are only using the one gun because they don't have access to any other, rather than because they're averagely clever people and know that using one gun makes it harder for police to track what group (let alone individuals) has done what shooting.

[Sheb]

So is your explanation that criminals in Britain are just smarter than criminals in other part of the world? Why use 19th century firearms if its not for the lack of real guns?

[smjjames]

A) I'd love to see North Koreans simply refusing to join the army.

B) You're missing one point. Prisoner's dilemma, such as "should I get a gun", or "should my country have an army" needs to have mechanisms that build trusts between parties, or some kind of enforcement mechanism. Within a country, there is one governing body that can take guns from every party in the game(and even then, it's not perfect, so we have an armed group - the police - for enforcement). There is no equivalent thing for states. I want Belgium to have an army because Russia has one. And Russia (and the Russian people) wants a be in army because the West have one. If one side disarm unilateraly, that side is screwed (and I'm not even saying we'd see US tanks parading in the streets of Moscow, but the side with an armed force would definitely be in a position of strength.)
 
Sure, I'd prefer for no-one to have an army (and keep in mind that would need to include guys like ISIS too). But it's something that can only be done slowly, by mutual diplomacy, and is hampered by the fact that every side is going to try to benefit by getting the other to disarm more than it does.

Theres a similar problem with nuclear disarmament. I can also see a similar problem once two parties get down to having a few nukes, neither side really wants to put itself at a disadvantage. So, relations between the two parties is crucial here.

[scriver]

So is your explanation that criminals in Britain are just smarter than criminals in other part of the world? Why use 19th century firearms if its not for the lack of real guns?

No, it's common in other parts of the world as well. And yeah, I wouldn't want to claim that that is the only reason. But criminals sharing guns is not unheard of. Could be that a British gun shortage is just making this more noticeable.

Also old guns are still real guns. For reference. :v