Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMore police that need firearms training: Woman Shot in her pajamas by deputy
Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/family-navy-vet-shot-startled-deputy-seeks-answers-193729306.htmlJennifer Orey, 36, was shot Sunday in a surprise encounter with two sheriff's deputies who were searching for a man reportedly in the area wearing a ski mask, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. Orey was in her pajamas in her yard around 10:30 p.m. because she heard noises and thought it was her ex-husband, the newspaper reports.
Orey and Deputy Luke Berhalter came in contact and the officer's firearm discharged at point-blank range, her brother James Morgan told local Fox 5 News.
"He fired without warning, saying freeze, or anything. Then just as she saw the black smoke coming out the barrel she turned her body," Morgan said. "The bullet went through her chest and her left nipple, into her shoulder and out her pinkie."
The deputy reportedly told her, "I'm sorry, you startled me," Morgan told the television station.
Talk about ridiculous. The deputy can't even follow the 4 rules of gun safety.
1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.
2. Never cover anything with the muzzle that you aren't willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
4. Know your target and what's behind it.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)and stuff
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)rather then their gun rights.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)don't share your point of view.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is easily possible to care about both.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)do you agree or do you wish for more such incidents?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Hence, we see such poor basic handling and marksmanship skills in the police that are entrusted to protect us.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Seems the deputy did the felling of a person in this case.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that's why they should be the only ones to carry guns.
If average citizens were allowed to carry they might do something stupid, like shooting someone in their own yard for no reason simply because they were "startled". Of course if some idiotic citizen were to do that the full weight of the legal system would come crashing down on them for their dangerous incompetence!
Thankfully we give cops all that power since they have demonstrated an ability to use it reliably.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)And YOU do because you think you may need to go to war with the police and the army.
Try to frame a constitutional argument for any such "right" without that basic premise as your foundation.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Do you think cops should engage in knife fights with local hoods? Guns are more of a discovery, like fire, than an invention. That genie is out of the bottle forever.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Child pornography being a perfectly applicable and enduring analogy by contrast.
A thing deemed harmful in and of itself. Zero tolerance for mere possession.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Cannot possess them. Not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Are guns and ammunition any less harmful?
Certainly *more* harmful as a threat to life and safety.
So all one can say about the so-called "right" of access to guns and ammo is that it is a political indulgence of some peoples' particular kink.
You can't call it a right any more than you can call access to kiddie porn a right.
One is merely indulged and the other isn't, with no adequate justification to distinguish the two.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)porn?
That analogy is intentionally inflammatory and ridiculously ambiguous.
Also, the 2nd Amendment is and inalienable right that is enumerated in our Constitution. The Supreme Court even agrees, the same court that held up the ACA supports the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)And how does the answer advance your argument that access to guns and ammo is a right?
And what do the police have to do with the political indulgence of things deemed harmful in themselves?
Other than having to defend themselves against the lethal kink on the one hand being indulged?
Sorry but you've made a mess and I don't know how to help you clean it up.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)The 2nd Amendment as interpreted by our current sitting supreme court is your answer. Check out the Heller case.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Those buffoons don't know what the Court is for.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)On the other hand, private gun ownership in Norway is close to the US, but the cops don't carry there (imagine applying for a CCW in that case, kind of awkward don't you think?)
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)please revise.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Hope the deputy gets charged.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)You dont want ANYONE, including LEOs, to carry firearms. You're principled in your opinions, and that's respectable.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Obviously, there are occasions when it makes sense to be armed, whether one is LE or civilian. But indiscriminate carry, especially in urban environments, puts us on a slippery slope.
I know many gun owners and I enjoy target shooting, but I don't know anyone outside of LE who carries. Most of those I discuss the issue with agree with me. A few think it impossible to disarm LE. I disagree. Mind you, tasers and pepper spray are weapons and if used correctly can be highly effective, as can rubber bullets. However, the trend seems to be towards greater lethality and effectiveness.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Wanting the most effective way to stop a lethal threat is likely hard-wired into the human psyche.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Working through it is part of what we call evolution.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Effectively stopping a lethal threat is.
Evolution cannot override survival imperatives; the reason should be obvious.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)A while back I posted an OP about how, in an entire year, German police officers only used 85 bullets against people. And one major reason for this is the obvious: if you have sane gun control laws, then people, cops included, don't need to be constantly worried about being shot.
That doesn't mean this cop shouldn't be held responsible for his actions, but if we really want to reduce gun violence as a society, we need to realize that, so long as we have absurdly permissive gun laws that put everyone -- police and civilians -- at greater risk, then accidents like this are going to happen.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in an urban area, possibly the bullets will land and kill a kid on a school ground a couple miles away. There is a good reason why such holiday stunts are illegal in the US.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)"sane gun control laws" do you propose be passed and enforced here and what strategies for passage do you propose?
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)Loosely translated, "Police fired less frequently in line of duty in 2011." The very reason the item is newsworthy is that there has been a decreasing trend in use of firearms by German police (which, it might be noted, does not include counter-terrorism units GSG-9 and KSK, which are part of the Border Protection agency and the army, respectively) in recent years. Since German gun laws have remained largely unchanged for decades, this trend can hardly be attributed to gun laws.
According to the article, Lorenz Caffier, interior minister of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in his capacity as chairman of the Conference of Interior Ministers (Germany is a federal republic):
At the same time, however, German culture--and that of most countries in Europe--is significantly more deferential to the authority of the state than American culture. Even if Germans possessed firearms to a comparable extent as Americans, they wouldn't be inclined to shoot at cops to the same extent simply because the police are agents of the state and the state is not perceived as representing "The Man" or "the 1%" or whatnot. The distrust of government in American culture can be traced to the wave of immigration from the English-Scottish border marches (where "government" primarily consisted of some army marching through and "commandeering" all your livestock) and to some extent the influence on American drug gang from the 1970s onward of Jamaican "posses," to whom the police are merely just another gang, albeit a better-funded and -equipped one (which, in Jamaica, they are).
Speaking of Jamaica, Jamaica has quite stringent gun laws, where possession of an unlicensed round of ammunition can net you a life sentence in prison. In spite of which, the country has had a violence problem for decades, even scoring #1 in national homicide rates not too long ago. It really isn't as simple as "more stringent gun laws => less violence." Russia has gun laws roughly on a par with the United Kingdom's, and yet the amount of violence (in the form of rates of both assault and homicide) well exceeds that of the United States. Sure, comparatively little of it is gun violence, but the homicide victims are just as dead. You can "prove" anything you want if you cherry-pick your data, be it "Germany has more stringent gun laws than the US, and fewer people murdered, therefore gun laws work" on the one hand, or "Jamaica and Russia have more stringent gun laws than the US, but more people murdered, therefore gun laws don't work."
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Telling you that Russia's and Jamaica's numbers don't count because they don't have a Starbucks in every corner.
It gets wild around here, some use terms like "industrialized nations" to cherry pick data and exclude Russia from that group. Russia, a superpower... is not "industrialized"? It's insanity.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)is due to changes in German gun laws. I'm claiming that the fact that Germany has far less police shootings than the US is because if you have strict enough gun laws, the amount of gun violence is so low that police don't even need to shoot very often.
As for Jamaica and Russia, this might well be the dumbest NRA talking point of all. Nobody is claiming that guns are the only factor determining homicide rates. It's not like you can count the guns and use that to determine exactly the number of homicides there are going to be. Pro-gunners need to understand the concept of ceteris paribus, because, ceteris paribus, more guns lead to more homicide, but obviously there are many other factors as well.
And that's why comparing countries that are similar in other ways besides guns is essential if you want to have a meaningful comparison. The US and Germany, UK, Canada, France, Australia, etc., the rest of the developed world have much in common, though they are obviously not identical. But when comparing the US to Russia or Jamaica, ceteris is not paribus.
Comparing the US to other developed nations is not cherry-picking, it is the natural comparison. It would be cherry picking if the US had higher homicide than half the developed world, and lower than the other half, and I only chose the higher half. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at the entire developed world, and finding that the US a significantly higher homicide than any other developed country, and also significantly looser gun laws.
And, although I'm sure people in the NRA bubble are not aware of this, comparisons among developed nations like this are extremely common in other areas of policy analysis or social science. For example, During the health care debates, it was often pointed out that the US lags behind other developed nations in various health-related measures such as life expectancy and infant mortality, despite spending more on health care. But I don't think even Sarah Palin was dumb enough to try and argue that really we should be comparing the US to Jamaica and Russia.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)is illegitimate, right?
Comparing apples to apples is less legitimate than comparing apples to Buicks.
Apparently, you think Japan is very similar to the US, too, or at least similar enough for your purposes (http://www.democraticunderground.com/117266065#post4). Japan is not racially or culturally diverse, and it has a very different history and culture, but it supports your point, right?
I guess my prior (sarcastic) agreement is still relevant:
22. There are no cultural, demographic, historical, economic or
other differences between Japan and the US.
Essentially, gun laws are the only difference, thus allowing an easy but valid comparison that would otherwise be silly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117266065#post22
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)Rather than only making them after your arguments are challenged; at the very least, you could stop being quite so condescending when people respond to what you actually wrote, rather than what you retroactively claim went without saying. (Seriously, have you considered that your arguments might be better received if you made them without trying to insult your audience as often as possible?)
Initially you asserted:
Is it really such an outlandish idea that crime (including violent crime) might be more closely correlated to (socio-)economic inequality than it is to gun laws? Because there's another difference between the US and other "developed" nations: those other countries don't have a built-in socio-economic underclass of descendants of former slaves who, even after slavery was abolished, were systematically formally marginalized for another hundred years and in effect continue to be so. The amount of violent crime in America would be markedly lower if we could factor out young urban black males (and to a lesser extent, young urban Hispanic males), but unfortunately, they're the component parts of a monster that American history has created, partly by slavery and segregation and partly by America's highly conflicted attitude towards drugs (i.e. trying to stamp them out while having a massive appetite for them).
And while American and Jamaican society aren't directly comparable, Jamaica actually plays a major role in the big picture. By dint of being a transshipment point for South American cocaine, Jamaican gangs have been involved in the illicit drug trade since the late 1960s, and the "posses" and the "Yardies" (to use the US and UK idiom, respectively) have influenced the way black drug gangs operate since then, to the extent that the London Metropolitan Police Service has a special unit, Operation Trident, to deal with black-on-black gun violence because it constitutes the bulk of gun violence in the UK. As it does in the US, it might be noted: young black males are disproportionately represented among both perpetrators and victims of homicide, and this is not a coincidence. They are the demographic most likely to be involved in the trade in illicit drugs, a business in which disputes are usually settled in blood, and as a result become inured to violence as a means of resolving any conflict. The notion that it's not merely acceptable, but indeed required, to kill someone for showing you "disrespect" is one that finds its origins in the "government yards" of western Kingston.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)secondary to posters of his ilk. Hopefully, he joins Hoyt in Gungeon-Heaven soon.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Can't anyone write a decent headline anymore?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)wtf