patrick.net

FortWayne says

I guess you can't trust anyone these days. Most cops are good folks though I think.

If most cops were good, the ones that are bad wouldn't be able to get away with the crimes they commit.

I believe cops have a tough job, and most are good. Unfortunately in my liberal state (Mass), they leave MY 2nd ammendment rights in the hands of the Chief of Police of my town (just like every other town in Mass). If you want to get a gun (and permit), you first need the blessing/permission of your town's chief of police. They can lie, stonewall, delay, and flat out say 'no' for any reason. That's liberalism for you. The Chief of Police in my town deciding my 2nd ammendment rights? Fucked up, aint' it? No need to worry about a home invasion or home protection? Because when seconds count, the cops are minutes away.... I don't blame the cops for this. I blame my state's liberals. Thanks for nothing.

AverageBear says

I believe cops have a tough job, and most are good.

In order for the "bad cops" to get away with committing these atrocities every day -- sexually assaulting and raping people, killing innocents, torturing, making death threats, false arrests, perjury, planting evidence -- they have to have the support of the system. There is no way the system could support such atrocities and protect the criminal cops if even 20% of cops were honest.

1 out of 5 cops standing up for what is right is all that it would take to make protecting criminal cops politically impossible.

AverageBear says

Unfortunately in my liberal state (Mass), they leave MY 2nd ammendment rights in the hands of the Chief of Police of my town (just like every other town in Mass). If you want to get a gun (and permit), you first need the blessing/permission of your town's chief of police. ... That's liberalism for you. ... I blame my state's liberals.

Actually, it's conservatism. Conservatives -- and most cops are conservatives -- believe in centralized authority and privileges for "the worthy". Liberals, by definition, believe in rights, not privileges, and the equality of all under law. A right, by definition, applies to all persons and does not require approval or permission.

So, a liberal would say that if a person has the right to possess a gun, then every person has the right to possess a gun, including convicted felons. Same goes for voting and every thing else that is allegedly a right.

Now some leftists will also argue for gun bans, but that's not a liberal or a conservative argument.

Nonetheless, if you had an actual right to possess a gun -- and I mean a real right, not just a right on paper -- then the state could not require that you seek permission to possess a gun, nor could the state deny you the possession of guns for any reason, including committing crimes.

In this country, we pay lip service to rights, but in reality, there is no right to
- free speech
- freedom of religion
- free press
- bear arms

Dan8267 says

Actually, it's conservatism. Conservatives -- and most cops are conservatives -- believe in centralized authority and privileges for "the worthy". Liberals, by definition, believe in rights, not privileges, and the equality of all under law. A right, by definition, applies to all persons and does not require approval or permission.

Dan,

You may or may not know this, but conservatives in Massachusetts are like unicorns; THEY DON'T EXIST (the elected officials, not the voters). It may make you feel good to wax eloquent in your belief that conservatives are to blame for me not being able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights in Massachusetts. The last time I checked, the Chiefs of Police don't make law, or gun laws in particular. They just enforce the law.

That said, you are simply wrong. Gun laws are state laws, and my state has been ruled by liberals for many decades. And the way the liberals in my state have crafted (twisted) our gun laws, they basically stonewall you, when you want to get a gun permit. Unless you know the chief of police in your town, or one of his family members, there's a very good chance you won't get your gun permit. It's reality.

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, if you had an actual right to possess a gun -- and I mean a real right, not just a right on paper

Like the ability to defend your property, your house, and your family in that house? Sounds like a legit, er "ACTUAL RIGHT" to possess a gun.

Hell, even our retarted DA Martha Coakley tells us not to try and defend ourselves. "Wait for the authorities", she says.....Because like I said, "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

AverageBear says

Gun laws are state laws, and my state has been ruled by liberals for many decades.

Another person who does not distinguish between the terms liberal and leftist? They mean the same thing in the same way that sandwich and airplane mean the same thing.

AverageBear says

It may make you feel good to wax eloquent in your belief that conservatives are to blame for me not being able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights in Massachusetts.

You do not have a Second Amendment right. That amendment is even more bullshit than the first. Rights on paper and rights in practice are two different things.

Let's look at the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that it says Arms, not guns. That's a big freaking difference. A gun is just one of many, many types of arms. The vast majority of arms are not guns. Arms include tanks, Apache helicopters, nuclear weapons, and land mines. Try buying or building any of those things and see how long before your government executes you.

If the Second Amendment were actually enforced, we wouldn't be debating about how many bullets a handgun clip may contain because you'd have the right to posses all the arms I mentioned above and anything else the federal government could possess. The entire point of the Second Amendment was that if the people had to rebel against the government again, it would be a fair fight.

The Second Amendment was never about guns. It was about arms. Until I can own my own Abrams tank, Apache Helicopter, land mines, and nukes, the Second Amendment is bullshit.

Maybe you should have the right to bear arms, but you don't. The question of whether or not you should have that right is completely independent of whether or not you actually have that right in practice.

AverageBear says

The last time I checked, the Chiefs of Police don't make law, or gun laws in particular.

You might want to inform your police chief of that. Cops regularly make up the law as they go along. That's wrong, but that's in effect what happens with bullshit laws like "disorderly conduct".

AverageBear says

Like the ability to defend your property, your house, and your family in that house? Sounds like a legit, er "ACTUAL RIGHT" to possess a gun.

The question of whether or not you should have the right to defend yourself, others, and property is independent of the question of you should have the right to own a particular arm. Replace gun with landmines and your analysis does not change.

But if people have the right to protect themselves and others, why the fuck did this woman go to prison for defending herself against an abusive husband breaking into her home and trying to attack her? And in case you're one of those people who only listen to Fox News.

AverageBear says

Hell, even our retarted DA Martha Coakley tells us not to try and defend ourselves. "Wait for the authorities", she says.....Because like I said, "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

If you want to debate the practicality of having a gun to protect your home... Having a gun at home makes you and your family less safe, not more. I know that goes against your everything your Cro-Magnon brain tells you. That Stone Age brain of yours says that the greatest danger in the world is another male from a neighboring cave coming into your cave at night and killing you and your children so that your woman goes into heat and bears him children. 90% of the history of our species was lived in the Stone Age, so it's no wonder your Cro-Mag 1.0 brain keeps saying this.

However, we don't live in the Stone Age. Like it or not, you live in the safest time in all of human history and every rational, scientific piece of evidence has unequivocally demonstrated that having a gun at home endangers your family far, far more than it protects them. Now maybe holding a gun makes you feel like a real man because you can fight off those imaginary intruders, and hey, if it strokes your ego, fine. But that does not change the fact that your family is much safer without a gun in the house. Facts aren't determined by your feelings, even feelings of fear for your family.

Here's the evidence.

http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe

Homes with guns are a dozen times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.The odds are much greater that the gun will be used against you or a loved one than that it will be used against an armed assailant or an intruder. Firearms are more often discharged in a homicide, suicide or an accident, than in self-defense.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/23/guns-safety-48182/

“Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home“, David Hemenway, American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, November/December 2011 — Abstract:

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit.

The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.

There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes.

On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/10/does_carrying_a_gun_make_you_s.html

Branas compared a group of shooting victims to a similar set of "controls" who had not been shot. His results, he said, show that guns did not, on average, protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault -- and in fact raised the risk by four times or more.

"People shouldn't feel that firearms are going to enhance their safety," Branas said. The study was published in the current issue of the prestigious American Journal of Public Health.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.

In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

And if that weren't enough...

You're more likely to kill a family member you've mistaken for an intruder.

The cops will likely shoot you first and ask questions never.

Kathryn lived in a rough neighborhood and a relative gave her a gun for protection. When she noticed men breaking through her security bars into her house she fired a shot into the ceiling. They were narcotics officers and fired 39 shots back, killing her. The police had falsified information in order to obtain a no-knock search warrant based on incorrect information from a dealer they had framed. After killing Johnson and realizing that she was completely innocent, they planted some marijuana in the basement. Eventually their stories fell apart federal and state investigations learned the truth. Additional facts have come to light that this was not an isolated incident in the Atlanta police department.

Summary

1. Liberal and leftist are two entirely different things.

2. The Second Amendment is the right to bear "arms", not "gun", and it's purpose was to make violent rebellion by the people a fair fight. If the Second Amendment were still in practice today, we could possess tanks, Apache helicopters, land mines, and nukes. Clearly, the Second Amendment no longer affords us the right to bear arms, not as an organized militia or as individuals.

3. Whether or not you should have the right to possess this or that firearm is an entirely different question than whether or not your currently do possess that right.

4. Guns at home make you less safe, not more. Sure, you might feel safer, but that does not mean you are safer. If you want a gun, because it makes you feel like a man, then fine. But that does not mean it is a wise decision or that you are safer having it. This is a scientific fact, not an opinion about whether or not the law should allow you to posses a gun.

Finally, when it comes to gun rights, you can either argue that possession of set A of firearms should be a right or that it should be a privilege. If it is a right, then anyone including felons can possess those firearms. A right, by definition, cannot be taken away.

In contrast, a freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege. So if felons can be denied the freedom to posses a gun, then it is a privilege, not a right.

In practice, today, gun possession is a privilege, not a right. I'm open to it being a right, but then you cannot deny that right to others including felons and including people serving time in prison. I'm also open to it being a privilege, but then don't claim it is a right. The only thing I'm not open to is contradiction.

And yes, voting is not a right in this country either. It should be. There is no good justification for it not being, and it's despicable that it's not.

Oh, and since it's Christmas day (well, where I am), I'll add that Jesus is unequivocally anti-gun. According to him, you should gladly allow yourself, your children, and your spouse to be shot dead by an intruder rather than to harm the intruder in any way. After all, death is no big deal when you're going straight to heaven and eternal bliss anyway. Of course, if Jesus was a fraud and the afterlife a lie, well, it appears that every single gun owner is as atheistic as I am whether or not they'll admit it.

Only if u fly first class.
Dan8267 says

AverageBear says

Gun laws are state laws, and my state has been ruled by liberals for many decades.

Another person who does not distinguish between the terms liberal and leftist? They mean the same thing in the same way that sandwich and airplane mean the same thing.

Dan8267 says

And if that weren't enough...

You're more likely to kill a family member you've mistaken for an intruder.

A family with a pool has waaay more chance of a child dying via drowning than a family w/ a registered gun. Care to put a spin on that fact? I'll take my chances protecting my family w/ a gun, than waiting for the police after it's too late.... Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6......

Dan8267 says

Gun laws are state laws, and my state has been ruled by liberals for many decades.

Another person who does not distinguish between the terms liberal and leftist? They mean the same thing in the same way that sandwich and airplane mean the same thing.

Dan, spin it any way you want with symantics (leftist vs liberal). Democrats rule Massachusetts. Democrats by and large are more anti-gun than Replublicans. Democrats in Massachusetts have have made it VERY difficult, close to impossible for an average tax paying, home owning, law-abiding citizen to get a permit for a gun. This is not by accident. Not acknowledging this is not acknowledging reality here in Massachusetts.

You want to know what to do to improve the overall quality of police ?

Destroy their unions and lower their pay. Make being a cop a far less attractive carreer move. This is the only way that we can drastically drop the number of dirtbag cops.

Once pay and benefits are dropped (a lot) there will be far far less people applying for those police jobs, and it will be easier to find the higher quality candidates that are really good ethical upstanding type people who have their act together and who are going in to law enforcement for (mostly) the right reasons.

Sure, maybe there will be a lot more cops engaging in crime on the side. But while they are administering their duties they will be far more fair and just.

Same thing with teachers. When part of a teachers motivation for being an educator is that they can make a decent living at it, it destoys the profession.

If the pay was low enough, that only people who wanted to teach for the enjoyment of that type of work, then it would be easier to screen who is going in to teaching for the right reasons.

Once you make it even close to being a financially viable career, it brings in all those lazy type assholes that are only in it for the money, and don't care about children in the slightest.

Dan8267 says

In order for the "bad cops" to get away with committing these atrocities every day -- sexually assaulting and raping people, killing innocents, torturing, making death threats, false arrests, perjury, planting evidence -- they have to have the support of the system. There is no way the system could support such atrocities and protect the criminal cops if even 20% of cops were honest.

1 out of 5 cops standing up for what is right is all that it would take to make protecting criminal cops politically impossible.

You really need to sit down and take a deep breath and get a grip. If you really believe less than 20% of cops are honest then you really need to move to another country. Right now, today.

Yes there are "atrocities every day". In a country of 330 million people that's going to happen. There are so many cops that even a having a few bad ones on each force will make thousands of incidents every year. To say 80% are bad is so totally absurd that you just are just looking foolish.

Curiosity overwhelms me, what exactly is your profession that has no bad apples? No one in your field has ever committed a job related crime? Really?

bob2356 says

To say 80% are bad is so totally absurd that you just are just looking foolish.

I agree. I would guess less than 5% are really bad. Another 30% have some issues making them less than great cops, but not dishonest.

I don't get the one out of five comment. That's like saying that about Priests. What percentage of priests do you think are pedophiles? I'm guess it's definitely way under 10%. It doesn't take many to severely damage the reputation of an entire group.

I'm happy you are finally realizing the effect your posts are having.

marcus says

It doesn't take many to severely damage the reputation of an entire group.

So your solution is to bring in less educated more likely to be corrupt people to populate the force to bring Dan's "4 out of 5 officers are corrupt" wet dream fantasy to life...
I see.....

marcus says

You want to know what to do to improve the overall quality of police ?

Destroy their unions and lower their pay. Make being a cop a far less attractive carreer move. This is the only way that we can drastically drop the number of dirtbag cops.

AverageBear says

A family with a pool has waaay more chance of a child dying via drowning than a family w/ a registered gun. Care to put a spin on that fact?

So your argument is that a household must either have a gun or a pool? Exactly what law says that? If so, I agree the gun is safer and you win! Happy, happy, joy, joy!

However, if there is no such law, then there is no relevance of the dangers of pools to the decision of whether or not to have a gun at the house. The statement I made, all evidence demonstrates that having a gun in the house makes your family less safe, is still true and indisputable.

Again, if you want a gun in the house despite this fact, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to have one or more. But don't spout the bullshit that those guns make your family safer. That's simply a lie. In fact, it's a dangerous lie. Anyone who believes that lie is more likely to lose a family member. At least acknowledging the problem allows you to deal with it.

AverageBear says

I'll take my chances protecting my family w/ a gun, than waiting for the police after it's too late.... Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6......

Irrelevant argument. You are more likely to be "carried by 6" with a gun in the house than without. Again, all the evidence says this. If the evidence said the opposite, I'd be stating the opposite. Hell, if the evidence said that sucking a smurf's cock was the key to immortality, I'd be making that case. Evidence, a.k.a. reality, trumps political opinions.

A rational person is willing to drop any political opinion should it be contradicted by facts.

AverageBear says

Dan, spin it any way you want with symantics (leftist vs liberal).

No, you don't get to spin the difference between leftist and liberals as "semantics". That's like arguing that rape and consensual sex between adults is just a matter of semantics. It's fucking retarded, and it's a lie.

It's such a big ass lie, that I'm now going to list some of the important differences between the two.

A leftist advocates banning hate speech on campus.
A liberal advocates freedom of speech for all, especially the KKK, even though the liberal venomously hates the KKK.

A leftist advocates political correctness.
A liberal advocates the truth no matter what it is. See sucking smurf cock.

A leftist says Obama is nowhere near as evil as Bush was.
A liberal says their close, and most liberals say Obama has done even more evil.

Leftism includes economic policies such as redistribution of wealth.
Liberalism is purely a social philosophy and has motherfucking nothing to do with economics. Now individual liberal do subscribe to various economic philosophies, but those philosophies are independent of liberalism.

A leftist is very much in favor of centralized, all-powerful authorities just like rightist are. The difference is that the right wants the central authority redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich and to force their religious beliefs on everyone. The leftist wants to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and to force everyone to be "nice" to other people.

In contrast, a liberal wants to spread power so thinly that no person or organization has any significant power over any other person. Leftists and rightists are essentially the same. Liberals are the opposite of both.

If you want, I can turn this discussion of Liberal vs. Leftist into a 10-page diatribe going into massive details. So, no, it's not a matter of semantics.

Oh, and one more thing. Just because you do not have a counter-argument against someone else's evidence-supported argument, does not mean you get to just call the other person's argument "spin" and dismiss it. Calling an argument "spin" is not a counter-argument; it's a copout.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Cops won't respect Americans until they know any car they pull over will have, to a statistical certainty, at least two people in with hand-held Gatling guns.

Knowing they're going to be vaporized at any moment will do a lot to make human beings of cops.

And that, seriously, is the best gun rights argument that I have ever, ever heard in my life. And as soon as that scenario becomes a reality, I'll buy a Gatling gun myself.

Letting the civilian population have access to the same level of technology that the police, if not the military, has is a great way to ensure freedom.

Unfortunately, reality is nothing like that, at least not now. How many times have I called for the pro-gun rights crowd to stand up against cops raping people, planting evidence, and falsely imprisoning them? Not once has any taken up the cause of freedom. The day they do and succeed, even in a minor battle, I'll join the pro-gun rights crowd, but not until then.

Call it Crazy says

Right.... Let's lower their pay to minimum wage... Just think of the quality of the candidates that will attract...

We'll get all those Walmart workers applying to be police officers... It will be awesome!!!!

Agreed. TSA agents make between $25,518 and $44,007 a year and they fucking suck ass.

bob2356 says

You really need to sit down and take a deep breath and get a grip. If you really believe less than 20% of cops are honest then you really need to move to another country. Right now, today.

1. What makes you think cops in other countries are better? Power corrupts. Lack of transparency and accountability leads to abuse.

2. Why should I give up my career, my financial security, my home, my family, my friends, all because of corrupt cops. Fuck that. I say fight back!

3. It is the patriotic duty of every citizen to try to improve his state. The first step to solving any problem is acknowledging its existence. That's what I'm doing and helping others do right now.

4. Any cop who does not arrest another cop who's engaging in criminal behavior is, by definition, dishonest. Any cop who protects another cop that has committed a crime is dishonest. I stand by my statement.

bob2356 says

Curiosity overwhelms me, what exactly is your profession that has no bad apples? No one in your field has ever committed a job related crime? Really?

As I have stated many, many times, a few bad apples are not sufficient to cause systematic abuse of innocent persons and the institutionalized protection of criminal cops. The few bad apples assertion is false.

To address "my field", software engineering... In order for software engineering to be nearly as bad as police forces, every time you clicked on an EULA, Bill Gates would have to break into your house, pull down your pants, pull down your underwear, bend you over, and rape you up the ass. If that happened, I'd call human rights abuse systematic in the software industry.

I'm hard pressed to believe that 20% of police are honest or decent. Evidence points more towards 100% of police to be wholly evil

The Professor says

errc says

I'm hard pressed to believe that 20% of police are honest or decent. Evidence points more towards 100% of police to be wholly evil

I must disagree. There are a lot of policemen who protect and serve. We must have law enforcement or laws would be meaningless and we would quickly fall into anarchy.

100% evil; no. 100% good; definitely not.

So you seem to assume that the natural state of modern man is anarchy. That the only thing saving us from our anarchous selves, is laws and those dutied with enforcing said laws.

I'm curious as to which laws you feel are currently in place, and enforced, that save us from your fear of anarchy?

Dan8267 says

Again, if you want a gun in the house despite this fact, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to have one or more. But don't spout the bullshit that those guns make your family safer. That's simply a lie. In fact, it's a dangerous lie. Anyone who believes that lie is more likely to lose a family member. At least acknowledging the problem allows you to deal with it.

Dan, please stop projecting. I never made the claim that guns make you or your household safer.

However, guns are safer than pools. Statistics prove this. Plus, you get the added benefit of defending your house and family, which you hope never happens. You started the argument that houses w/ guns are more dangerous. Does this take into account those that DON'T properly register their gun. Does this take into account those that DON'T properly store their gun. I'm betting that idiots that don't 'do the right things' as gun owners, are pumping up your stats.

So while you paint a picture associating death and danger w/ gun ownership, I only countered with the fact that owning a pool is more harmful for your children (and the children that you invite), than owning a gun, statistically speaking. This can't be refuted. So for all the liberals (leftists, or whatever label you want to slap on them today) and gun-haters that shout you down in a discussion at a BBQ or party (ask me how I know), they become absolutely livid when I point out that their pool is more dangerous. They don't like my argument (ie, the truth), and sadly, don't like the messenger that bears this truth (me).

I will agree that it's not a good idea to have a gun in the house, when your kids are 12 or under. Me? I'm waiting till my kids are at least 16 before i buy my gun. That is, unless my Chief of Police wants to refuse my 2nd amendment right to own a gun.

So Dan, I ask you this. Who SHOULD I blame for Massachusett's retarted gun law? It certainly can't be my state's GOP (again, think unicorns), or state conservatives in general.

Sooo, we can't fingerprint those EBT fraudsters to confirm identity when we give them free money (ie tax payer's $$) , but we (Mass liberals), MUST fingerprint those law-abiding, taxpaying, legal residents when they request to purchase a gun. Un-fuckin'-believable. I have no problem being fingerprinted if I want a gun. However, if you are receiving free shit from taxpayers, then you should get fingerprinted too. Then again, this is Massachusetts, one of those idiotic states that harbors illegals.... Obama's Antie Zeituni and drunken Uncle Omar come to mind.

I'm not a big fan of wikipedia to back an argument, but I'm lazy today, and I think this is pretty much what I'll find wherever I look...

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

Oh, and some people DO think that the current Mass law is unconstitutional...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/12/mass-police-chiefs-sued-over-gun-license-limits/9z2fi5udoCmnYMv8sQrDnN/story.html

http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1843598971/Dighton-man-sues-town-police-chief-after-cops-revoke-his-firearms-license-seize-his-guns

I can't find the article right now, but I read a few weeks back that most cop unions make the city, state, county agree not to interview accused cops unless their lawyer and/or union rep is present.

That only ONE interviewer can be present, even though the cop may have his personal lawyer, his union lawyer, and his union rep in the room with him?

Yeah, the cops CAN'T be interviewed - either before or after an arrest - unless they deliberately and explicitly waive the right, without their union rep or lawyer or union lawyer or all three. Otherwise, the government can't interview them until their reps turn up. In some places, they have to be given advance warning of impending questioning.

They also can only be interviewed during "normal hours". So while cops can keep you 24 hours for questioning, and grab you at 3AM, and can question you without a lawyer present (which YOU must ask for, whereas they must deliberately and in writing refuse all council by default), AND have multiple cops badgering you simultaneously, police are protected from all this by legal agreement.

Furthermore, in NM and in most other places, cops are investigated only by a board containing current and retired cops and prosecutors.

Cop Unions also forbid cities and counties from setting up review boards, or refuse them to have any powers to compel testimony or records from the police department.

Even in Eugene, Oregon, the Civilian Review Board is toothless and laughed at by the Police Department.

Dan8267 says

Cop's Shot Innocent Man 16 Times While In Bed

It's amazing isn't it? People barge into your room while you are fast asleep in the wee hours of the morning, and as you groggily reach over to turn on a light, you get shot 16 times.

But it ain't the cops fault, because "Policy" says it's okay to shoot if they think you reach for the nightstand lamp - I mean, loaded weapon in the nightstand drawer.

Oh, and they've probably shot your cat and chihuahua for being threatening. As well as killing your Parakeet.

Uruguay has a great law, cops can only raid homes between dusk and dawn if there is immediate danger of violence. Of course, US judges are notoriously lazy and inattentive when it comes to warrants.

I'm curious as to how many murders and thefts are thwarted each day, by our laws and the fear of punishment for breaking said laws

Being that everything is relative, in order to make a value judgement of the laws, their enforcement, and the stated penalties for breaking them,,,,we'd need to compare to the number of murders/assualts and theivery committed by LEO and the judiciary/law enforcement, prison industrial complex,,,,

Dan8267 says

1. What makes you think cops in other countries are better? Power corrupts. Lack of transparency and accountability leads to abuse.

Because I've lived in other countries. They are better in some.

Dan8267 says

2. Why should I give up my career, my financial security, my home, my family, my friends, all because of corrupt cops. Fuck that. I say fight back!

No you shouldn't leave because of corrupt cops, but because your level of paranoia makes you see a threat that is far in excess of of the actual problem. There are problems with bad cops but it's not wide spread and certainly not systemic. There are millions of arrests every year. A few percent bad cops means thousands of bad incidents. Try to get some kind of perspective.

The Professor says

We must have law enforcement or laws would be meaningless and we would quickly fall into anarchy.

Yes, and those laws must apply to the police, judges, and politicians in our country every bit as much as they apply to the common man.

AverageBear says

Dan, please stop projecting. I never made the claim that guns make you or your household safer.

AverageBear says

Like the ability to defend your property, your house, and your family in that house? Sounds like a legit, er "ACTUAL RIGHT" to possess a gun.

Hell, even our retarted DA Martha Coakley tells us not to try and defend ourselves. "Wait for the authorities", she says.....Because like I said, "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

AverageBear says

I'll take my chances protecting my family w/ a gun, than waiting for the police after it's too late.... Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6......

You stated quote a few things that depend on the assumption that having a gun makes "you and your household safer". Since overwhelming evidence says otherwise, I am making sure that everyone who reads this knows that.

AverageBear says

However, guns are safer than pools.

Read this again. I've already address the silliness of your argument.

AverageBear says

You started the argument that houses w/ guns are more dangerous. Does this take into account

Honey, the man who understands and admits that having a gun in the house is way the fuck more likely to get your loved ones killed than a break-in, is the man who's least likely to have the former happen to him. The idiot who refuses to acknowledge this real and present danger, is the one most likely to lose a family member. No one addresses a problem he does not think exists. You are choosing the foolish path by refusing to acknowledge reality when you don't like it.

AverageBear says

So while you paint a picture associating death and danger w/ gun ownership, I only countered with the fact that owning a pool is more harmful for your children (and the children that you invite), than owning a gun, statistically speaking. This can't be refuted. So for all the liberals (leftists, or whatever label you want to slap on them today) and gun-haters that shout you down in a discussion at a BBQ or party (ask me how I know), they become absolutely livid when I point out that their pool is more dangerous. They don't like my argument (ie, the truth), and sadly, don't like the messenger that bears this truth (me).

1. Your argument is irrelevant. People don't have to have either pools or guns in the house. And the risk is cumulative and independent.
2. You cannot refute that having a gun in the house is more likely to cause your children to die than not having a gun in the house and someone breaking into it.
3. I do not hate guns. I'm actually quite found of first-person shooters. However, I hate gun nuts whether they be white trash or gangster trash. Glorifying violence is stupid, but it's not the gun I hate. It's the irrationality and bullshit machismo of gun culture I hate. Real men with real big penises don't need guns to feel like a man. To us real men, guns are tools, not penile extensions.
4. I do not have a pool and would not get one if I had kids. I'm well aware that they are death traps. However, the fact remains that a gun in the house makes the household less safe.

AverageBear says

Sooo, we can't fingerprint those EBT fraudsters to confirm identity when we give them free money (ie tax payer's $$) , but we (Mass liberals), MUST fingerprint those law-abiding, taxpaying, legal residents when they request to purchase a gun. Un-fuckin'-believable. I have no problem being fingerprinted if I want a gun. However, if you are receiving free shit from taxpayers, then you should get fingerprinted too. Then again, this is Massachusetts, one of those idiotic states that harbors illegals.... Obama's Antie Zeituni and drunken Uncle Omar come to mind.

That's some serious conservative, racist shit.

Food stamps can't be used to kill people. Guns only purpose is to kill people. That's why there are fingerprinting laws regarding guns. I may not agree with them, but your comparison with electronic benefit transfers is ridiculous.

However, I will go on the record as stating that the state's coercion into having every person's DNA and fingerprints from birth is just another Orwellian aspect of our country and it's only getting worse.

Dan8267 says

However, I will go on the record as stating that the state's coercion into having every person's DNA and fingerprints from birth is just another Orwellian aspect of our country and it's only getting worse.

It has become necessary, since the liberals have allowed so many illegal citizens

into the country, its now becomes a necessity to carry out normal business to

provide services to real citizens of this nation and not some foreign national.

do you have an alternative ...

Dan8267 says

Food stamps can't be used to kill people.

its done wonders to handicap our economy and destroy communities.

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

Food stamps can't be used to kill people.

its done wonders to handicap our economy and destroy communities.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a.k.a. Food Stamps, cost the federal government $75.7 billion this year.

In contrast, the federal government spent $821.6 billion on warfare and $221.3 billion on the interest on the national debt, which could be eliminated if we drastically reduced warfare spending. (Same site for stats as above.)

And the federal government spent $7.7 trillion bailing out the too-big-to-fail banks. That's $51,333 from every household in America to bail out the banks compared to $505 from every household for food stamps to make sure children don't starve.

You are a fucking idiot.

Dan8267 says

government $75.7 billion this year.

how many factories could you have built to have people earn a real income,

pay taxes and add to the economic machine..... but thats not what Liberals like

you want...

Dan8267 says

And the federal government spent $7.7 trillion bailing out the too-big-to-fail banks. That's $51,333 from every household in America to bail out the banks compared to $505 from every household for food stamps to make sure children don't starve.

and your plan to employee workers back to their jobs .... zero ! no plans to expand and grow jobs...

The Professor says

Dan8267 says

Yes, and those laws must apply to the police, judges, and politicians in our country every bit as much as they apply to the common man.

More so. The enforcers should be held to a much higher standard of morality and behavior.

Agreed.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/03/3446569/see-average-police-firefighter.html?appSession=977429076071264&RecordID=626&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=&cbCurrentRecordPosition=1

are we really paying this much for these A-holes to kill citizens, break laws and get Paid administrative leave (vacation) while being investigated by their peers and buddies for months only to be found justified later on?

33 cops killed by gunfire in 2013, the LOWEST NUMBER SINCE 1887

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230,0,2076517.story#ixzz2p1e7a6zU

On the other hand, the number of "justified" homicides by police officers has INCREASED over time, according to the latest available statistics from the FBI, which do not include 2013.
Officers killed 410 people in the line of duty in 2012.

Robert Sproul says

410

So literally, being a civilian is over 12 times more dangerous than being a cop.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

The fucking bad guys rock and roll in that part of the world and come after you with earnest intent to kill.

I say if we're militarizing our police force, we should send them over to Afghanistan. You want a tank? Pick it up in Kabul.