What does it take?

[AreBee]

Rob,

If you reread your own post to which I was replying, you'll note that... my reply implied a 'general' sense of the word 'you' and not a specific as in you, Peter McLennan…

If you re-read post 200 you’ll note that Russ explicitly addressed Bart:

You can bet there'll be weapons in the mix, Bart. If you think these refugees are all just poor folks run off their land by a local upheaval you're even more gullible than I think you are.

If you re-read post 204 you’ll note that Peter paraphrased Russ, hence “you” mandatorily refers to Russ explicitly addressing Bart:

In other words: "I'm SO much smarter than you"

…my reply implied a 'general' sense of the word 'you'…

Your reply is irrelevant, given that your explanation demonstrates a failure to reason.

[Jim Pascoe]

Having read this thread and others in the past on the subject of gun control in the US, I can see it appears to be an intractable problem.  To me it seems ludicrous to have so many dangerous weapons among the general population, but I can see the powerful lobbying by the pro-gun faction and the not-so-thinly veiled threats to start an uprising if the government tries to ban guns is going to make any control very difficult.

I live in the UK so see things from a UK perspective.  I can say that if I get involved in a road-rage incident, or my neighbour across the road has a mental melt-down, or if I catch a burglar in my house, the very last thing I would ever expect would be for them to be brandishing a gun.  We live in a town of 20,000 people.  Is there a single hand-gun in the town?  Probably not.  A few shotguns - mainly on farms I should think.  Would I prefer to live in a similar town where half the population owned guns?  No I would not.

Very difficult for the US to turn back the clock I appreciate.  What I do find odd is when so many of it's citizens are happy with the current state of affairs.  Armed escalation is a very easy path, de-escalation much more difficult.

Jim

[Photog-x]

Just a little public service announcement.   Tell 'em, Chris Rock...     

How not to get your a** kicked by the police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

[drmike]

in a town of 20,000 people.  Is there a single hand-gun in the town?  Probably not.  A few shotguns - mainly on farms I should think.  Would I prefer to live in a similar town where half the population owned guns?  No I would not.
Jim

Jim

How many hand guns do you want? Apparently it is very easy to acquire a hand gun even in Droitwich in sleepy Worcestershire. It won't be very good but it will work.

Do you know that one definition of a decommissioned gun (for which no licence is required) is that the ammunition is no longer available? How long do you imagine a workshop would take to convert it to take some readily available ammo? I hope I'm out of date on the law but I don't think I am.

If used for target shooting at a club you can own a pistol but they either require a long barrel or an extended stock to make it impossible to hide about your person and of course none of them can be carried or used in a public place. The rules are strict about that. You also have to meet quite an extensive set of requirements before being granted a licence (other than a shotgun) which can take weeks or months to come through and is weapon specific.

So, I'm guessing in your town of 20,000 there will quite a few illegal and legal pistols.

I think we are fortunate that we really don't expect anyone to have a gun and react in a totally different way to countries where firearms are more commonplace and that I think is one reason we are fortunate in gun crime. We must not be complacent

Mike

[Jim Pascoe]

Mike

My main point was that the fear of somebody pulling a gun on me or my family is fairly miniscule.  A fist yes, a knife - possible.  But guns - no.  I do also realise that in some cities the rules are slightly different, but not very.  Probably a worry if you are a drug dealer in a big city.  I can also imagine it is not impossible to get hold of a gun if one were determined, but the fact they are illegal (mostly) and not freely available means negligible gun crime.

In the UK a decommissioned gun has to be made incapable of firing any projectile - usually by welding a plug into the barrel and barrels to be slotted.  Just being obsolete does not count!

Jim

[drmike]

I agree with what you say. I don't give the possibility of being confronted with a gun a second thought, ever.

You seem to be right about welding things etc. Deactivated guns I had a client who was a gun dealer and he explained some of the rules to me. I must have got muddled. I was I meant Historic guns for which ammunition is no longer manufactured. Apparently there was a thriving trade in the importation and reactivation of such guns but I suspect legislation may have caught up.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's what you get when you elect an American President who blames the police instead of the criminals....

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Do you have some direct quotes or links of Obama "blaming" the police? Most of what we get to see in the European media is Obama supporting the police and condemning violence against them.

One needs to read between the lines. Also, he is too smart to openly blame the police. His latest speech on the subject, that was supposed to be a eulogy for the five slain officers, was absolutely disgusting and shameless recruiting rally for a domestic terrorist organization (BLM). He first eulogized the five officers, then immediately proceeded to justify the reasons for their execution (slavery, Jim Craw, "systemic racism," "white privilege," etc.). The same thing New York mayor De Blasio did, resulting in the execution of two NY police officers shortly thereafter. Obama speeches are typically a smorgasbord, so that everyone can find something: he condemns Islamic terrorism (though he doesn't name it so), then in the same breath provides justification for it (the Crusades). He "supports" the police, then continues about "systemic racism" in it.

No wonder then, that just a few days after the speech in which he supposedly supported the police and condemned their execution, a new execution took place (Baton Rouge).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

+1

I do not understand the selective rejection. "President Obama sought to calm the increasingly tense situation in Ferguson, Mo., on Thursday, saying there was “no excuse” for "excessive force" by police or for looting or violence aimed at law enforcement."

BTW do we know that this is exactly what he said?

So, should he instead have applauded "excessive force" by police, or encouraged "looting or violence aimed at law enforcement"?????

Does not make sense, the country sounds very lost for direction and in dire need of common sense instead of knee-jerk polarized reactions that brings out the worst in people.

Really disappointing.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Obama speeches are typically a smorgasbord, so that everyone can find something:

Sounds like a politician, maybe he is too nuanced for some.

He "supports" the police, then continues about "systemic racism" in it.

You mean he shouldn't address issues?

No wonder then, that just a few days after the speech in which he supposedly supported the police and condemned their execution, a new execution took place (Baton Rouge).

Really a classic. So it's that speech that directly caused the frustration (maybe suffering from  PTSD) in a war veteran who risked his life for the USA, and suddenly gave him the idea, let's shoot some cops some 763 miles from home.

Denial of the fundamental issues will never solve them. Obama seems to address those issues, and calls for restraint, on all sides.

Cheers,
Bart

[Tim Lookingbill]

He (Obama) "supports" the police, then continues about "systemic racism" in it.

No wonder then, that just a few days after the speech in which he supposedly supported the police and condemned their execution, a new execution took place (Baton Rouge).

There's a different kind of racism going on with police culture that gets painted with a broad brush due to the fact from so many accounts and interviews of how police treat each other that police see them selves as part of a brotherhood, a gang that protects their own that seems to trump "Serve and Protect".

It makes them appear as if they don't police them selves with regard to how a few of their members don't honor the badge and community they serve when they don't do their job when treating a certain race of people differently than other races. Maybe it's a one time incident like the Rodney King issue in the early '90's. They're not all bad, right?

Why are we seeing so many incidences NOW over 20 years after the Rodney King incident? Why weren't there more videos between that time? Is it because now we all have cellphones and can immediately upload the recording to social media for millions to see?

So most educated people who thought this was just an isolated incident are now aware of the proliferation of video recording devices availed to the public creating a new awareness that maybe this isn't an isolated incident with a few cops. Maybe there is an unspoken racism going on with this brotherhood of police who don't rat on each other like some gang and that this has been going on for decades but no one could produce evidence? Kind of like the Ku Klux Klan.

Not knowing for sure makes those of a certain race who feel they are being targeted because of so many videos of bad exchanges with police over minor infractions spread across the country (not isolated to one particular city by one corrupt cop) creates this new racism/prejudice toward cops as culture/gang by those who feel targeted.

This Tavis Smiley interview of former police chief Norm Stamper describes this unavoidable bad police culture that must be dealt with if we're ever going to make any headway...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/former-police-chief-norm-stamper/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...You mean he shouldn't address issues?

That is exactly what I meant. Not to address the "issues" in the same breath as eulogizing the officers killed by his previous addressing of the "issues." Btw, I put "issues" in quotation marks as there are no issues of that kind.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... like the Rodney King issue...

Remember that the officers involved were acquitted in a jury trial?

[MattBurt]

There are no direct quotes because Obama doesn't say or mean those things. You have to "read between the lines" or just make it up to suit your agenda.

No matter what he says a certain segment will always say he is lying, insincere, or trying to incite violence. He isn't and most people believe that. They just aren't as loud. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

Remember that the officers involved were acquitted in a jury trial?

Isolated incident with no evidence that they were brutalizing Mr. King. I wonder what the jury had for evidence to show the police were just doing their job.

The video shows Mr. King continually moving and rolling around on the ground, so maybe the police wanted him to stop doing that because they feared for their lives.

Something else on the flip side of this issue is that due to this awareness of the proliferation of video recording devices by the public is that some of these incidences could be staged to goad the police into becoming violent so the perp can sue the city. When in doubt follow the money.

Some of these exchanges seem way over the top ridiculous that police could turn a busted tail light into a shooting.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...You have to "read between the lines" or just make it up to suit your agenda...

Make it up? He eulogizes the officers and the same breath brings back slavery, Jim Craw, etc. It is not even "between the lines," it is all there in the open, providing "justification" for the execution. The message is there: this country is STILL so racist, even after voting a black man into the white house (2x), that the only way for blacks is to resist it every step of the way, argue with cops, resist arrest, and ultimately violently rise against them.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I wonder what the jury had for evidence...

While not perfect, jury trial, as practiced in this country, is by far the best justice system on this planet, compared to alternatives. 12 people, sitting for days, listening to both sides of the story and seeing all available evidence, then locked into deliberation until all 12 have a unanimous decision, is hard to beat. You and I see only this or that angle of the story, and only a fraction of the evidence, while we all have our own idea of what justice is. So, when in doubt, I tend to trust the jury and the official justice.

What is the alternative? American Idol-type of mob phoning in their votes "guilty" or "not guilty"?

[MattBurt]

Make it up? He eulogizes the officers and the same breath brings back slavery, Jim Craw, etc. It is not even "between the lines," it is all there in the open, providing "justification" for the execution. The message is there: this country is STILL so racist, even after voting a black man into the white house (2x), that the only way for blacks is to resist it every step of the way, argue with cops, resist arrest, and ultimately violently rise against them.

You just admitted there are no quotes supporting your claim. Why do you think he mentioned those issues? Could it have anything to do with the protest those police were working being deeply connected to those same issues?
Did you see exactly what he said about them?

Here's the speech in question.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Did you see exactly what he said about them?

Here's the speech in question.

Thanks for the link. I didn't have time to look it up, but I did take the time to read it.
Impressive, and a very coherently built speech.

He also sort of held a mirror for everybody to have a look at their own role, I guess some posters mistook that for a window when they saw something rotten ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Photog-x]

Self-righteous.  It's amazing to see it on display...

Self-righteousness is a feeling or display of moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person