Second Amendment

[Rusvul]

   Unsolvable? Sure. It's not possible to stop all violent people from being violent. But we can hinder violent people, and perhaps in doing so stop some of them. Consider: Could a terrorist with a bow cause nearly as much loss of life as a terrorist with an automatic rifle? Dubious, especially if they haven't trained with a bow for a long, long time. Could they still kill a few people? Possibly. But just because you can't fix a problem doesn't mean any effort to improve the situation is worthless.

[Wylder Treejumper]

I don't think the comment about bows was in the context of modern gun control, it was in relation to the Second Amendment at the time of the Founders.

Anyways. Recognizing the practical right to revolution, it is necessary to have weapons that would allow revolution. Otherwise, the Founders could have said, "The right to bear swords shall not be infringed upon." A sword was a weapon, just not as good as a musket. However, I think this debate is becoming too academic.

[LT Sandpaw]

@Rusvul
Exactly, that is why I support background checks, but like I mentioned before, it's almost impossible to own a gun in France, but they still had mass shootings, and shootings in general. A wide ban on guns wont solve the problem, just as making guns legal to everyone wont solve the problem.

We could hinder the "Would be Criminals" by giving Police more powers which would take away from other personal rights, like the Fourth Amendment. I think the biggest problem in this debate is that there is no compromise between the Conservatives and the Liberals. No middle ground where everyone gives a little.

[DanielofRedwall]

@Rusvul
We could hinder the "Would be Criminals" by giving Police more powers which would take away from other personal rights, like the Fourth Amendment. I think the biggest problem in this debate is that there is no compromise between the Conservatives and the Liberals. No middle ground where everyone gives a little.

Not sure giving the police more power would be wise at this point, considering the recent controversies about police militarisation and brutality.

[Hickory]

@DanielofRedwall: Yeah, but if you think about it this sort of police brutality isn't new... In the 60's during the Civil Rights Movement and such there were quite a few police actions that were clearly racist. It's simply that nowadays racism is much more a minority (although still strong...) so when something does happen people respond differently.

What I'm saying is that a few police officers who used their weapons to hurt or kill an innocent shouldn't affect how we treat the rest.

[Cornflower MM]

......

What I'm saying is that a few police officers who used their weapons to hurt or kill an innocent shouldn't affect how we treat the rest.

A few?! Sage, police killings and beatings have been going up steadily, many more than have been reported on the news I'm sure. Giving the police even more leeway isn't the answer.

[Hickory]

I just meant that incidents like Ferguson are still a huge minority.

[James Gryphon]

Interesting bit of trivia. Which country in the world has the biggest prison population, at over 2 million people? Per capita, it's the second highest in the world.

Answer

Our own lovely United States, the "Land of the Free".

[close]

This might not accurately account for "undocumented prisoners", whether there or in the countries it's being compared to, but needless to say it's still extremely high by anyone's standards.

I think part of the trouble with the modern police force is that officers have stopped feeling that they're a part of the communities they police. They simply don't identify with the people they work with. It's "us vs. them". If you were an officer and you really cared about the community, your first instinct would not be to respond with lethal force as soon as something twitches. Modern police have become infamous for killing citizens' animals at the drop of a hat, just for looking at them the wrong way -- needless to say, you would never kill someone's dog if you expected to ever interact with them again. Also, they (like some of the other most notorious government agencies) aren't accountable to anyone. The police take care of their own, and every officer knows that they will never need to answer for anything except the most egregious (and best recorded -- there's a reason why officers don't like people pointing cameras their way) abuses of authority. If the police go to the wrong house, kick the door down and run in in full riot gear with machine guns ready, and kill the bleary-eyed homeowner who woke up, totally confused, at their intrusion and (very reasonably) attempted to defend himself, it was "just a mistake", and chances are there won't be any significant disciplinary action.

There are good and bad officers. There's at least two people I know and respect who're in the force and I trust them to take care of business in an even-handed fashion. Honestly, I think that's true for most officers. I feel that, usually, if you mind your own business and your manners, you'll get along okay. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't also some thrill-happy wannabe soldiers and thugs looking for an excuse to go on a power trip. Giving all police everywhere a blank check to do what they want is a recipe for disaster when it's been proven that some departments can't handle the resources they have in a responsible manner.

I think the first step is to make sure that officers are involved in the towns and with the people they're supposed to oversee. You're not going to go giving everybody the beatdown if you're likely to meet up with them or their parents in the store or at a community event later in the week. Likewise, it's harder to look somebody in the eye and lie about a fellow officer's misdeeds if you know how that citizen or their daughter or their son was hurt by it. Officers are not "holier than thou"; they are public servants. They should respect the public, their time, and their property as they would their own.

Secondly, the police probably don't need so many toys. There's nothing wrong with the traditional, stereotypical "man in blue"; giving him full riot gear for what should be routine business is begging for trouble. The logic behind SWAT teams is "use it or lose it" -- so they very frequently do, which usually results in extreme overkill. I understand there are cases where it's nice to have that extra armor, but if not having it makes the police think a little more carefully before barging into each situation, potentially saving some relatively innocent people's lives, it's worth the extra risk.

Finally, financial considerations should never be an issue. Being an officer is a calling, not a career. If you're doing it for the money or the job security, you're in it for the wrong reasons and should consider another line of work. Officers should not be incentivized to do their jobs a certain way. Traffic ticket revenue, for example, shouldn't go to the police. If somebody's car is confiscated, the police shouldn't get a second look at it afterwards. Their first and last thought when dealing with a situation should be about whether it is the right thing to do, not how it helps the department's bottom line.

An analysis of the police department's results should be based not on how many crooks they catch or tickets they give out, it should be based on the crime rate of the community. The officer's job, first and foremost, should be working to protect people and make their town a better place. It's about prevention, not dramatic reactions to crime after it's already taken place.

[Kitsune]

* Kitsune accidentally bumps a controversial topic.

Whoops.

Personally, I don't see why the second amendment should be removed. In fact, guns should be used more. The Middle East has a much smaller number of school shootings than the United States because the teachers carry rifles.

[Ashleg]

If my teachers carried rifles I wouldn't feel safe to go to school.
My school has police, though, and they have guns.

[Cornflower MM]

Just out of curiosity, Ash, why wouldn't you feel safe? You really think your teachers would shoot you?

[Jetthebinturong]

I wouldn't trust my own brother with a gun. I don't want to be around guns that aren't ornamental. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want to be around people who own guns. Their only function is to kill. That's the point of them. The same way I don't want to hang around people who carry knives. They're weapons, they belong on a wall or in the hands of the military and nowhere else.

I'm not against people owning weapons, I just don't want them to carry them around me.

[The Skarzs]

Knives are tools. . .

[Jetthebinturong]

We're talking about different kinds of knife.

People don't typically tend to carry vegetable knives around with them.

[The Skarzs]

I carry a pocket knife because sometimes I need it at work, to screw in a screw quickly when I don't have a screwdriver, to pry things apart, or even when taking lunch and I want to cut my sandwich in half.