Changing Gun Laws

[Ben Beckerich]

Law enforcement in much of this country is paid to get "collars," especially in the major cities. If they are not producing the arrest numbers the mayor wants to use for reelection, they get in trouble- they literally get in trouble. Every day they get to the station and do the shift-change briefing, and every day again when they get off... and are told the craziest shit you wouldn't believe. "You need to be getting collars any way you can. Bust them on ______, bust them on ________- whateva, I don't give a fuck how you do it, but this mothafuckin pricinct is required to pull in 8,000 collars a month, and you sonsabitches are only pulling in 7,500. Y'all wanna sit around on ya asses and eat donuts and sip on ya cawfees all damn day, but ya sonsabitches are gonna be earnin ya pay or ya gonna be out on ya ass. Ya'nderstand what I'm sayin?"

 

I'm not making this stuff up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft

 

If they can pop you on felonies, they WILL.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[Pete_H]

 

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

 

Think you aren't a felon?

 

If they enforce and prosecute any of those other "felonies" like they enforce and prosecute snowmobiling in a wilderness area then I'm not going to worry too much that the FBI is going to pull up in front of my house anytime soon.

[tvashtarkatena]

Fortunately, the bar for removing basic constitutional rights in this country is a bit higher than labeling someone 'irresponsible' because they happen to enjoy weed.

 

And no, not every one of the 600,000 people in prison for weed in this country are drug kingpins.

 

Prisons (my bro's a public defender - in Humbolt County) are full of people with learning disabilities, addiction disorders, psychological disease, and African Americans, the majority of them poor. After more than a decade running the public defenders office down there (he just retired), my brother still found how our system treats these people heartbreaking. The general public simply doesn't realize what's actually happening in our criminal justice system.

Edited December 8, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Pete_H]

I don't necessarily disagree with your last point. I worked for a Prosecutor's Office in a large but poor county in eastern Washington for a while and spent most of the time putting alcoholic natives in jail for DUI and such. It was really sad.

[Fairweather]

While it's impossible to deny the problems this country has meting out equal justice, I'm more worried about the militarization of law enforcement. Of course the police unions, mayors, chiefs, etc. regularly claim they are "outgunned" on the street, and this is why they need armored vehicles, drones, helicopter gunships, and military tactics to take down a convenience store robber armed with a machine-stamped .25 caliber piece of junk (or a native-American wood carver armed with a knife). And of course, they always run that video from years back of the Hollywood bank robbers who were, in fact, armed with illegal weapons to justify the notion that we the people, for all intents and purposes, need soldiers on our streets. Police shouldn't be acting like soldiers, IMO. If it walks like a duck, flanks like a duck, shoots like a duck, or hovers like a duck...

[tvashtarkatena]

That is a huge and ubiquitous problem. No entity has much control over a unionized police force in a major city. Any attempt to alter their training - decrease racist behavior or unnecessary violence, often opens up their contract for renegotiation - a back-off poison pill that gives departments lots of autonomy.

 

The SPD is a case in point. It is currently operating under a memo of understanding negotiated, in part, by the ACLU following a federal investigation and subsequent court order that documented over 50 cases of excessive use of force, often with an explicitly racial motive. It's been two years, and no real plan of action for the SPD has emerged, although all parties remain hopeful. If Seattle's experience doesn't serve as an example for self reform in other cities, and it may not, then our effort will have to be duplicated in every major city in the US, because they all have a violence/racism/training problem to varying degrees. Where those resources would come from - even the feds don't have that many people, is beyond me.

[Pete_H]

Police shouldn't be acting like soldiers, IMO.

 

Serious question: why do you think that? Do you believe the police have a hidden political agenda? What specific freedoms do you think the police might intrude upon by being well equipped?

 

I personally would prefer the police to have every advantage over some shitbag armed with a .25 cal piece of junk or the AR-15 he just bought at Wal-Mart.

[Fairweather]

The police, generally speaking, have no political agenda--although a few metropolitan police chiefs certainly do. My belief is that police should be more than "law enforcement." They should integrate themselves with the communities and people they serve. My harping notwithstanding, I like cops on bicycles for this very reason.

 

As for the criminal armed with an AR rifle, well, we just don't see this very often--except, of course, in recent mass shootings. And I would point out that our well-armed police forces have been largely ineffective responding to these tragedies. I would propose that the gun culture has been just as effective ginning up sales in the law enforcement business segment as they have with civilians.

 

Do you believe our "well-equipped" police should have drones hovering routinely over our cities? To me, this sounds like a very bad idea. Again, my opinion, police departments should not look like this:

 

Edited December 8, 2013 by Fairweather

[Pete_H]

Again, my opinion, police departments should not look like this:

 

I know! Those haircuts are horrible and the baggy camo look is totally 2002.

 

Seriously though, the drone issue is a tough one. I think in certain situations its a good legitimate tool but if used in a random fashion could be an invasion of privacy and runs into Constitutional issues, especially in Washington state.

 

This is conjecture, but one reason for the militarization of the police, might be an increase in people with military experience becoming police officers. Police work clearly attracts some military types and veterans have an advantage in civil service exams.

[Fairweather]

They've also done a pretty horrible job screening their cadets and purging hotheads and other undesirable officers from the ranks.

[Fairweather]

I've got no problem with departments having a drone or two--unarmed and used only to survey unfolding situations. But I have no desire to live my life with drones buzzing overhead. The proliferation of surveillance cameras is bad enough.

[Ben Beckerich]

Military are the cronies of the government- they kill, destroy, invade, assault, occupy, and generally aren't really about "rights" and stuff.

 

Police are civilians. They exist to serve the community and protect it. They do NOT exist to kill, destroy, invade, assault, occupy, and they ARE supposed to care a LOT about your rights.

 

That's why there's a difference- that's why our military isn't our police, and our police aren't our military. Totally different purposes, totally different training, totally different results.

 

The question shouldn't be "why don't you like the militarization of police?" The question should be "how the fuck are you OK with this?"

Edited December 8, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[AlpineK]

[img:center]http://www.the-digital-reader.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/amazon-prime-air-drone2.jpeg[/img]

[ivan]

good to see we have the resident members on the board from both sides of the political divide opposed to drone use over our own skies - what's it gonna take to concede maybe we shouldnt' be using them willy-nilly above the skies of the rest of the world?

[Ben Beckerich]

This guy is being charged with a felony because cops shot bystanders. That's right.... he's being charged for the actions of the cops.... Cops missed him, shot bystanders, are claiming he was the reason they fired, so he's responsible for what they did.

 

Nevermind the fact that there isn't a police training manual in the WORLD that doesn't require officers to know their backstop before firing. And nevermind that even if they had hit him, they still would have been in the wrong- dude was unarmed and having a crisis, not robbing a fucking bank or raping a child.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/how-do-you-charge-an-unarmed-man-with-sh

[tvashtarkatena]

Drones are coming - in force. The companies that produce them are commercializing their products for the domestic market. They're cheap now - they'll practically be free in the future, as will microrecording devices.

 

FFA rules will need to change - but that is certain the happen in the face of the staggering automated utility drones offer.

 

The ACLU had a drone bill last session that was shot down by Boeing - we'll try again next year but the effort will only succeed if we can convince Boeing that it is their best interests to address the public's substantial concerns about drones rather than quashing them. Amazon through everyone for a loop - no one is even discussing commercial use of drones and the privacy issues there.

 

Micro surveillance/recording devices, commercial, public, or personal, will be everywhere. That's just what's going to happen. Restrictions on the use of that data is something we can control, to a degree. The inevitable ubiquity of the technology is not. Embrace it, fight that part of the fight you can win, or move underground.

 

BTW, 3 more weeks to make your donation before the FY ends.

[Fairweather]

I dunno, Bezos's and SPD's little drones might provide for some good entertainment.

 

[prole]

Micro surveillance/recording devices, commercial, public, or personal, will be everywhere. That's just what's going to happen. Restrictions on the use of that data is something we can control, to a degree. The inevitable ubiquity of the technology is not. Embrace it, fight that part of the fight you can win, or move underground.

 

Is this what thought leaders do? Doesn't feel right, you might be doing it wrong.

[Ben Beckerich]

I'm also going to point out the fact that the ATF NFA registry division is currently taking about 10 months to approve people's applications for registered weapons. I got my Mk18 approved in about 3 months like 5 years ago, and THAT was an insane amount of time to wait for some bureaucrat asshat to glance at my info, type my name into NCIS to see if I'm a felon, and affix my tax stamp to my form. They were promising THEN that they'd steamline their process, hire new agents, and improve their approval times. 5 years later, their average turnaround time is about three times LONGER than it was.

 

So fuck registration.

[Fairweather]

Where do you live that requires the registration and taxation of your guns? There is no gun registration here in Washington State, and I can tell you that it takes local LESA about 30 minutes to renew a concealed pistol license.

[rob]

Hey Ben, question for you. I understand your point about the simple possession of something not actually hurting anybody -- that it requires an action. I'm curious how you feel about speed laws -- after all, the action of simply driving fast in your car by itself doesn't hurt anyone...but it could. I understand the distinction you make that driving fast is, at least, actually doing something rather than the passive possession of an inanimate object -- but that seems like a bit of a stretch. After all, to possess is a verb and now we're just arguing symantics, which is basically bullshit, right?

 

So I gave it some thought this weekend I and I do believe you have a valid point that, considering gun ownership rates in this country, the vast majority of owners do not commit homicide with their weapons. In fact, really I'm surprised it's not worse than it is, considering. I guess that's a positive reflection on the social instincts of humanity. However, I also think it's incontrovertible that when you compare gun homicide rates per capita, the situation in America is significantly worse than basically every one of our peers, and that's really the crux of the whole discussion. The difference is really significant, doesn't it seem likely we're doing something wrong? Sure, someone's got to be the worst (in terms of our peers) but come on, we're not retarded. We don't have to suck quite so bad at it. After all, It seems that if you could prevent potentiallly thousands and thousands of violent homicides by making all gun owners jump through some DMV-esque hoops, wouldn't most people agree that it's worth it? Other Western societies seems to have figured it out. I know their circumstances are not the same, but still -- we restrict lots of things because of their likelihood of causing damage to others. For example, yelling fire in a crowded theater. I know, I know that's an action and not possession -- semantics. Sometimes possession can have active results -- like when your unstable teen or a burglar uses the weapons you failed to responsibly secure to hurt somebody. I mean sure maybe he would have found one somewhere else but we can at least keep it from being easy. Lots of crazy people lack the follow through to succeed in some of their more impulsive (and horrific) psychotic plans hatched deep in the shadows of mental illness.

 

I can understand a possible argument that the oft suggested methods of achieving this goal are, themselves, ineffective and therefore onerous -- but surely you would be open to at least the concept of some form of governmental (i.e. Legislative) regulation of firearms, assuming you could be convinced it was at least somewhat effective and not too burdensome (but maybe annoying?) I mean, if it could prevent so much tragedy isn't that was society does?

 

It's possible that you don't believe speeding should really be illegal, I suppose. Or you fail to see the similarity with my driving analogy. I understand the difference that driving is not constitutionally protected (that's for you FW haha;), but the supreme court has already soundly supported the abstract concept of gun control and regulations regarding the purchase of and possession of weapons, but I suppose you could disagree with that opinion, too. Certainly many do.

 

I guess it's possible that you and I disagree so fundamentally on the responsibility of society and the role of government, and yet I find it hard to imagine that this could really be the case because the logic seems so clear to me. And yet America continues to waste huge amounts of money and time (and lives) discussing the very merit of gun control itself as if that were the issue up for debate and I just really still can't believe it. It seems like such a waste of time and yet I don't really hear any other suggestions from the very vocal opposition and I may be an optimist but I have a hard time accepting that anybody really thinks we should just do nothing -- and yet that's exactly what we seem to end up doing.

 

 

 

[Ben Beckerich]

The reason we can't (you and me, your side and my side) see eye-to-eye on this is because we don't agree on the problem to begin with.

 

You think the problem is guns.

 

I think the problem is socioeconomic disparity.

 

I support my theory thusly:

 

-Crime rates in this country have always followed the economic status in this country

-Despite many big federal encroachments on gun liberties over the last century, not a single ban, registration requirement, background requirement, has ever had a marked effect on violent crime

-The single most heavily regulated parts of the country continue to have the most persistent violent crime problems- more people are murdered in Chicago with hammers than assault weapons... hammers are legal, assault weapons are utterly banned

-These other western cultures you're comparing us to have varying degrees of gun control- some are extremely restrictive, some are even laxer than ours (arguably)... but what they DO have in common is socialism. They take care of their under-classes far better than we do.

-Canada has as many guns as we do per capita, yet their gun crime rates are comparable to the EUs, not ours.

 

In summary- banning guns, registering guns, restricting magazine capacity, requiring law-abiding gun owners to deal with even more red tape, fees, wait periods, and authoritarian assholes to engage in something that's supposed to be a fundamental, uninfringeable American right is completely missing the point to begin with, and STILL will not save lives or reduce crime.

 

Things that would be helpful-

 

-Single payer healthcare

-Establishment of a job, a home, and food as basic human rights

-Single payer education

-Broad integration tactics aimed at getting poor blacks/minorities off the reservations (inner city projects) and out amongst the opportunities for wealth and prosperity the rest of us enjoy

 

Do these things, and I'll bet another month's salary violent crime drops not only rapidly, but permanently. And we can keep our guns.

[Ben Beckerich]

I'm not a socialist, by the way. I'm a die-hard capitalist. But I'm a progressive, and believe you can have a free market AND ensure everyone gets a fair deal.

[Fairweather]

I'm not a socialist, by the way. I'm a die-hard capitalist. But I'm a progressive, and believe you can have a free market AND ensure everyone gets a fair deal.

 

You're talking about the freedom vs equality axis here. And while having both is a nice goal, there is always going to be tension between these two ideals.

 

On the whole gun thing, you might want to read this interesting story in today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. If you live in Portland, it looks like Obama's ATF has been busy in your neighborhood...

 

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html

[tvashtarkatena]

Freedom requires equal treatment under the law and equality of opportunity, it doesn't 'accommodate' it.

 

FW's misunderstanding of the value of equality, and the strawman it necessarily generates, is the number one excuse for opposing the value of equality in this country.

 

Our system has been gamed by the haves to increase for increase income disparity for decades, primarily in the form of a regressive tax structure, so that's the unhealthy condition our nation currently enjoys.

 

Rising income disparity and the erosion of the middle class's basic financial security is a huge problem in this country - perhaps our biggest. We're going to have to take it on at some point, and sooner is usually better than later when fixing systemic problems that are worsening.