The Weird, Random or Interesting Things That Fit Nowhere Else Thread

[Hurlshort]

We could also probably train our police to not pull their guns out all the time. I am not sure those victims would benefit from having guns of their own as much as just not having cops who wave their guns around like it is the only way to deal with a situation.

[Guard Dog]

I'd give the police a choice. Either give up your firearms and rely on non-lethal weapons while on duty, or give up your qualified immunity. You can't have both. Pick one. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Guard Dog

[ShadySands]

Reminds me of the comedy show I went to last since the comedian was talking about several instances of cops shooting people because they thought they had guns when it was some common object like a phone or wallet. He was trying to make a point about if anyone in our society should be able to identify a gun it should be the police. The joke didn't really land but the point was well received.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Three cheers for government! Give up your guns they say. We will protect you they say. 

if you gave up your guns, even just handguns, the cops would be less likely to need their guns.  

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/01/us/chicago-murders-2017-statistics/index.html

 

arming people in high pressure situations is gonna lead to dead bodies and unnecessary victims.  is not rocket science.  cops get more training with firearms than average joe, but firearms is designed to be lethal and any mistake can, and too often does, lead to dead people.  duh.

 

gd, as is typical for the gun issue, inverts and confuses.  gd is far more likely to be killed by a family member using one o' his guns than he is to be killed by cop firearms.  gd is far more likely to be killed by a nogoodnik with a gun during the commision o' a crime than he is to be shot by a cop.  gd is far-far more likely to kill himself with a gun, statistic speaking, than he is to be shot by a cop.

 

so yeah, give up your guns, en masse, and the government will be much better able to protect you from gun violence.  you think if the girl in the video had been armed she woulda' been less likely to have been shot? coulda' defended herself from police aggression?ridiculous.  

 

police violence is a problem and needs be addressed.  the more education a cop has, the less likely he/she is to be the target o' an excessive force complaint.  is at least correlation 'tween increased education for cops and decrease in the kinda youtube theatre which should be seen as unacceptable by all americans.  'course is tough enough to get enough folks today to be cops when the educational requirements is high school.  so try and hire cops who is better educated to face a well-armed American populace, and arm those cops only with tasers, nightsticks, pepper spray and a dozen or so hours o' conflict resolution training.    

 

take away guns from americans does require a change to the Constitution and is thus unlikely.  even so, the reality is you is far less likely to be shot by a gun if you do not own a gun.  gd, and his loved ones, would indeed be safer if his guns were taken from him.  

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Raithe]

Unlikely Therapy: Skeletor is Love, The Journey

[Guard Dog]

Nice Gromnir. Take one sentence from a post about one thing, and an afterthought at that, and make it about something else. But if you want to jump back in those murky waters I'm game.

 

Yes I get what you are driving at about being statistically more likely to be hurt by a gun you own. You know what? I-DON'T-CARE. That's right. Not a bit. The people who have broken no laws, done no wrong do NOT owe any apologies to the victims of those who do. And as for the idea that taking private property from people because of what statistically might happen is about as intellectually hazardous as locking people up for crimes they might commit one day. I'm touched about your concern for my safety. I wouldn't worry too much. The only family left to me on this earth does not have opposable thumbs. I figure I'm quite safe from being shot by her. And don't worry about me leaving this life by other than natural means. Not planning on it but if I do I'll use a rope. Don't want to screw other gun owners do we?

 

Also the notion that the police even CAN protect you is a fantasy. They got to the Capital newspaper building in 120 seconds. Amazing response time. And still five people were dead. One armed man in the building MAY have stopped it. If it were in Virginia that is. Maryland does not really hand out CC permits. Perhaps you feel safe where you live. That in an emergency the police can get to you quickly. Maybe they can. Not all of us can say that. The nearest Sheriff substation to me is 15-20 minutes away by road. The only way help would get here quicker is one of them happens to be patrolling closer. Seems unlikely since the last time I saw a deputy out this way was two years ago. So in the unlikely even of a use of force situation I am on my own. The police can solve crimes and they can perpetrate them. They don't prevent them. And besides even if I did call the cops the very first thing they are likely to do on arrival is shoot that last family member I have.

 

Now, on the actual subject. You are correct, the fact that too many police are dim-witted under educated bullies who are shockingly ignorant of the laws they enforce is a problem. The profession seems to be unusually attractive to cowards and people of low character who relish having authority over their fellow humans. The kind their flaws would never allow them to achieve otherwise. Not all cops are like this. Maybe not even most of them. But more than a few are. A sizable minority. It is a problem.

 

The larger problem comes from the lengths the municipalities go to protect them. Not out of any sense of loyalty. Rather to limit their exposure to liability and litigation by the victims of police abuse. I recall a case in Iowa where the cop shot at a dog in a fenced yard and hit the dogs owner square in the chest. She died instantly in front of her son. THEN the cop shot the dog. That cop was justified and protected from wrongful death by the qualified immunity extended to police. They can't be held liable civilly for "lawful" actions taken in the course of their duty. As long as the city & SA has your back it's a license to kill, beat, brutalize with impunity. THAT is the problem. Take that away from them and I think you'll find police a bit more cautions, a bit more likely to ask questions before shooting everyone in sight. Not happening I know.

 

One more thought on guns. You have brought up the idea that if just handguns were banned it would reduce crime. I'd agree with you on that. I'd even go along with a ban on JUST handguns under these conditions:

• It MUST be a Constitution Amendment. The laws of one Congress are easily undone by the next.
• The amended text should eliminate the Justification Clause in the Second Amendment. Too many times in our history has that been relied on to suggest the founders meant something other than "the people" despite using the words "the people".
• Spell out in clear and unambiguous language the individual right to own rifles and shotguns with the exception of reasonable restrictions on fully automatic action as determined by state law.
• Since handguns are no longer constitutionally protected and will presumably soon become illegal the police will be enjoined from carrying them when not on duty. Meaning like the other weapons they have that the public is barred from owning, their sidearms will be locked in the armory until they go one their shift and turned in again after.

Of course none of that will happen. To the left it's not about stopping crime. It never has been. And one restriction is supposed to be a segue into the next and the next and the next. And those who favor gun rights will never go along because there is no trust that there will ever be a line the government won't happily cross.

[Hurlshort]

I agree with most of what GD says. I'm not quite as condemning of the police, because I feel like their training reinforces certain flaws instead of correcting them. I also think there was opportunity to prevent the Maryland newspaper shooting by our legal system. It wasn't on the day of the shooting, but rather way ahead of time. There was a lot of build up to this guy walking into the building with a gun. The warning signs were there. Now obviously hindsight is 20/20, but we need to continue to learn and improve how we handle mental health in this country. I wish the energy that was spent on all this gun debate was focused on creating a society where people don't go on mass shooting sprees.

[Raithe]

Speaking from the cheap seats, it does seem to be a very fine line to balance.

 

If you put too many restrictions on them (law enforcement), then in situations where lives are in the balance any form of hesitation can lead to loss of life and serious injury. At the same time, it can't just be a wild west pull a gun at a moment's notice and blast away.

 

The point is finding the midway point of training, attitude and perception.

This seems to get harder to find as the different viewpoints argue over the matter and start pushing to the extremes of both arguments.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Raithe

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej5AQBfNKd0

Edited July 2, 2018 by Raithe

[Gfted1]

TBH, Im embarrassed for him. Yes yes, were all equally delicate flowers the nobody has the right to touch without permission, but jeez, he really sounds like a wimp whos trying to piggyback on the "me too" movement or whatever. Toughen up from that 5 second grope, Mr. Crews. smh.

[Hurlshort]

Way to completely ignore the first part of the interview that addresses positions of power and how they are used to protect predatory behavior.

[Gromnir]

Nice Gromnir. Take one sentence from a post about one thing, and an afterthought at that, and make it about something else. But if you want to jump back in those murky waters I'm game.

 

 

 

"But, of you love government you should stand up and cheer. Here is what it looks like:"

 

insert dramatic video

 

"Just a week before another cop from the same department shot an killed an unarmed and completely innocent man on his front porch following a fake 911 call. https://www.kansas.c...e196129279.html

 

"Three cheers for government! Give up your guns they say. We will protect you they say."

 

claim we were responding to a single sentence o' your post, and an afterthought, is either intentional misleading or...

 

oh, and the "I-DON'T-CARE" is the root o' the problem.  handguns are by their very nature, dangerous.  they is intended to be dangerous.  a non-dangerous handgun would be resulting in class action suits by purchasers as the tool would not be suitable for the purpose for which it were designed.  so yeah, when there is an accident or when people in the heat o' the moment do the unthinkable (but predictable) and use a gun in an irresponsible manner, then society as a whole needs to take responsibility, 'cause folks such as gd don't care and feels no need to apologize.  oh, and every dumb arse drunk driver thinks he is somehow special and different.  gd "i don't care" is same kinda arrogant as, in spite o' statistics revealing a real and widespread problem, gd is special.  accidents happen.  "one bad day" $% happens to the level-headed folks all too often. 

 

is any number o' dangerous tools and activities which has all kinda safety measures legislated by law.  hell, toy guns which shoot small projectiles which can be swallowed by a child can and has had legislation limiting their manufacture and sale, but 'cause far more lethal actual handguns is protected by the Constitution, extraordinary means is needed to ensure public safety.   toxic waste disposal standards may be legislated and need only be rational to be Constitutional.  alcohol consumption and manufacture may be legislated rational.  auto drivers need pass competence tests and need also purchase insurance and such legislation need only be rational.  why should responsible drivers, drinkers and toxic waste producers suffer 'cause o' the behavior o' bad drivers, drinkers and toxic waste producers?  society frequent deems social costs is too great to indulge individual indifference.   good. society has reasonable motivation not to trust gd's indifference when it comes to toxic waste, drinking and driving.  hell, gd's dog ownership is rational subject to legislation.  probable need a doggie license and rabies vaccination at the very least regardless o' what gd thinks is best. good.  democracy does work if imperfect.

 

there is fundamental rights which has, through legal notions o' Incorporation (has nothing to do with business corporate structure) been applied to individual states as well as the fed government.  for much o' the history o' the nation, the 2nd amendment were presumptive not incorporated.  the reason why Dodge City were not actual suffering much gun violence as shown in movies is precise 'cause o' local ordinances which prohibited gun possession in city limits. such limits were common, rational and went w/o any kinda challenge as they were intuitive legit.  21st century 2nd amendment rights is actual historical aberrational and logic inverted.  for instance, while protected long gun possession actual makes most sense from the standpoint o' a "well regulated militia" pov, handguns is nevertheless gaining Constitutional protection and is almost rare the main target o' gun control activists.  

 

oh, and police is current protecting you from other indifferent americans with guns. get rid o' the excess handguns and it obvious becomes much easier to protect you.  use anecdotal evidence is quaint and as misleading as your video.  no, the police cannot protect gd from being killed by a mass shooter any more than they can protect you from being attacked by a shark, killed by a tornado or struck by lightning.  still, handguns is far and away the number one method o' homicide in this nation.  a vast majority o' those handgun homicides is heat-of-the-moment killings. angry. scared. confused.  angry, scared and confused with a gun in your pocket while you is being threatened by an angry, scared and/or confused person who may also has a firearm? sorry, but explaining homicide statistics is not all that complex. recognizing how zero-out handguns tends to make everybody safer is not complex.

 

get rid o' handguns and wingnuts with their personal arsenals will still have the means to protect themselves from The Government... a government, btw, which is democratic elected and represents the collective will o' your neighbors. 

 

get rid o' handguns and you still got weapons to protect your property from bandits and rapists and the epidemic o' evil cops.

 

get rid o' handguns and you is statistic safer from firearm accidents and your ex having a really bad day. 

 

on the positive side, at least you see handguns as an aspect o' gun control which would save lives, which makes much o' your response naught but noise.  as already noted, am recognizing a Constitutional amendment is required to bring 'bout change.  is actual considerable legal justification for making gun control a local issue 'cause such were presumed for much o' the nation's history. even so, exorcise handguns from second amendment and or make gun control local is no longer functional options w/o Constitutional convention or amendment... and amendment is unlikely.  so we is all stuck with a stoopid law, a stoopid tradition.

 

oh, and am not certain what is the answer to the issue with cops and proclivity towards violence.  we worked probation for a number o' years and worked close with numerous "cops" at street-level law enforcement.  there is a culture o' violence in law enforcement.  the attitude test is not codified anywhere, but is probable the number 1 reason for arrests in this nation.  sadly, there is a racial component to the attitude test, but is not cop-centric.  the most twisted asian gangbanger you is likely to meet will be unlikely to 'talk $h!7' to police. different racial and/or ethnic groups got a spectrum o' what is deemed an acceptable response to police. getting punk'd is universal abhorrent, but social acceptable response to cop application o' the attitude test varies. also, and this is particular troubling, but those most likely to be attracting police attentions do not respect cops who display any kinda reluctance to use violence.  "don't mistake my kindness for weakness," is a common phrase in the mouth o' cops in many communities.  the cop who is visible averse to using violence will make life miserable for themselves and their fellow cops.  a cop may not be violent by nature, but the job has a transformative effect... or the cop quits. better educated cops do appear better able to make the right kinda judgment call 'bout when force is needed as 'posed to excessive, but even the educated cops is embracing the endemic violence o' the profession.

 

somehow get rid o' "the attitude test" nonsense has gotta be job 1 if is gonna be any real changes to culture o' police violence, but am not having great ideas 'bout how to do so.  and educate the populace so they are not dismissive o' a kinder and gentler cop?  *shrug* sounds silly even saying such, but w/o achieving such, we see a continued functional on-the-job training o' cops by the public to be reactive and aggressive. 

 

ultimate, give people decent freaking jobs so they are able to buy a house and raise a family and most o' the crime (and other social issues) disappear. gd sympathy may be non existent.  "I-DON'T-CARE" may be answer to a whole host o' social problems, but folks who do not have any belief they can improve their situation by working hard... won't. hopeless people won't work harder to get better educated and acquire higher paying jobs so they can have mortgages and private school payments to send their kids to saint bartholomew's. dismiss such folks as malcontents or undeserving o' help ignores broader social costs, such as, but not limited to, crime. 

 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Way to completely ignore the first part of the interview that addresses positions of power and how they are used to protect predatory behavior.

Psst, the entire "me too" movement is based on that.    But Im sure the 5 second grope he endured damaged him for life. smh.

[Guard Dog]

Jeez the Gromnir shtick gets hard to follow sometimes when the paragraphs get long. Funny since you bring up drunk driving. If you will recall I was hit and damn near killed by one almost 10 years ago. The funny thing about drunk driving is no one is suggesting banning cars. Which is funny because there is no right to have a car. If safety is the goal maybe we should. As of 2016 far more people were killed by cars than guns. Of course 99% of the car deaths were accidents and like less than 2% of the gun deaths were. 

 

But to return to the point, "society" (however someone wishes to define it) takes responsibility by punishing the people who did something wrong, Not mercilessly harassing people who didn't. I have a permit and I carry most places I go. I have never touched it nor even considered. it. I keep a fire extinguisher in the bed of my truck for much the same reason as the .45 in my pocket. That is what a firearm is. A tool for a task. A tool I seriously doubt I will ever need. But I've thrown out or refilled a dozen fire extinguishers  because the expired unused. But I always replace them because one day I might need to put out a fire. That pistol is EXACTLY like that. If someone told me I didn't need a fire extinguisher because the fire department will come when i need them I'd look at them like they lost their mind. 

 

More coming. I've got a conference call to attend in two minutes. 

[Hurlshort]

 

Way to completely ignore the first part of the interview that addresses positions of power and how they are used to protect predatory behavior.

Psst, the entire "me too" movement is based on that. But Im sure the 5 second grope he endured damaged him for life. smh.

I do not get you at all. This reads like a complete lack of empathy.

[Gfted1]

I do not get you at all. This reads like a complete lack of empathy.

 

"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks."

 

 

I have empathy for those that I deem deserve it but I cant stand opportunistic attention seekers, which he is, imo. Any second now I expect him to be trotted out to a presser with Lisa Bloom or similar.

[Blarghagh]

I worry about you.

[Gfted1]

That's very thoughtful of you but how about we leave the detours into armchair psychology out of things?

[Blarghagh]

Aw, but I'm so good at them.

[Gfted1]

Then perhaps you should focus within? You seem to have plenty on your own plate.

[Malcador]

I forget, any protesting or complaining is bad.

[Gfted1]

I forget, any protesting or complaining is bad.

 

That's probably about 95% accurate. People love to run their gob and whine.

 

But that's not what Im talking about, is it? Im smh that Mr. Crews and his five seconds of junk diddling are being equated with sodomy and forced sex. And the fact that he's the one testifying before Congress also makes me lol. We can now return to the intellectual dishonesty.

[Malcador]

It's not 95% accurate though, but as you do.  One thing celebrities do have is a wider voice even in these days, if he wants to use it to highlight something, good for him.  Not really seeing why this is a problem for anyone.

 

 

 

I'd give the police a choice. Either give up your firearms and rely on non-lethal weapons while on duty, or give up your qualified immunity. You can't have both. Pick one.

 

That'd never happen, they seem to fear for their lives so much.  Which is funny when I see how hard they try to look

[Malcador]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4308381/b-c-lions-player-says-housing-market-is-so-tight-hell-offer-free-season-tickets-to-potential-landlords/

 

Handegg player offering season tickets to try to get a place

[Gfted1]

It's not 95% accurate though, but as you do.  One thing celebrities do have is a wider voice even in these days, if he wants to use it to highlight something, good for him.  Not really seeing why this is a problem for anyone.

 

The peanut gallery is stronk this day! Its not a "problem", or a matter of "squee, youre not as empathic as me" or anything you guys need to furrow your worried and confused brows over. As I stated in the first post, Im embarrassed for him. His "paper cut" is not equivalent to most others cases. I really don't know how to state it any more plainly.