3 ms·

Those two points you bring up are more of an issue with the widespread corruption and behavior of police than any problem with guns. They'll shoot you reaching

Those two points you bring up are more of an issue with the widespread corruption and behavior of police than any problem with guns. They'll shoot you reaching for a wallet, and the answer is going to be "knife, mace, taser, whatever" once "gun" is no longer in vogue, and it'll still be bandied about by saying "it could've been a firearm from the time before we banned them". Norway's rules are reasonable--for them--but again I am hesitant given the history of abuse of authority we have in the United States. It's been shown in the last fifteen years that mandatory firearms registration (of a sort similar to Norway's here) may result directly in confiscation of private and legal firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_respon... It was not long ago that we've seen the effective use of an impromptu militia to maintain order: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police...

dalke 11y ago
Your first sentence is as best only partially correct. You would have to include corruption by the prosecutors, who are the ones who file the charges. In any case, you have attempted to distinguish between "behavior of police" and "problem with guns". This is impossible, as everything to do with police response is an issue with the "behavior of police", including their response to an often armed citizenry. You can only use your argument by begging the question, and assuming that these entangled issues are easily separated. Your best example, which you say is "not long ago", is at 23 years old almost a generation ago. Your justification is even weaker than mine! You argue that an 'impromptu militia' has (occasionally) helped protect property during civil unrest and therefore must be preserved. Yes, and probably somewhere a pistol butt was used to break the window of a car and rescue a baby that was trapped inside, so we have to make sure everyone has a pistol handy during hot weather. Your example with the Katrina response is equally tenuous. That appears to have been an illegal order by the local police, which then lied to the courts about their actions. Census records were used to round up Japanese during WWII. Do we therefore stop taking a census? Police have also illegally misused driving license information and similar records (see http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html ). Do we therefore stop tracking those records? The answer to those rhetorical questions is "no". You haven't explained why this example of illegal police use of the records is meaningful, other than to say that no records should be kept, for fear of abuse. But all of this is besides the point. You said "The reason we can't talk about gun control is because both sides have problems which neither side wants to address.", but I still say that your characterization of the two sides is 1) limited, because there are more than two sides, 2) incorrect, or at least highly selective about the issues, and 3) hasn't pointed out the issues that someone like me, who is for much more restrictive gun control, isn't willing to address.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "Do we therefore stop taking a census?" No, but maybe we should stop asking people questions about their ethnicity. The census was intended to apportion legislative seats. Nothing else. There's no reason or constitutional justification for any of the other questions that they ask.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Did I manage to push a hot button of yours by accident? As your comment has nothing to do with the original article or this thread.

dalke 11y ago

Your first sentence is as best only partially correct. You would have to include corruption by the prosecutors, who are the ones who file the charges. In any case, you have attempted to distinguish between "behavior of police" and "problem with guns". This is impossible, as everything to do with police response is an issue with the "behavior of police", including their response to an often armed citizenry. You can only use your argument by begging the question, and assuming that these entangled issues are easily separated. Your best example, which you say is "not long ago", is at 23 years old almost a generation ago. Your justification is even weaker than mine! You argue that an 'impromptu militia' has (occasionally) helped protect property during civil unrest and therefore must be preserved. Yes, and probably somewhere a pistol butt was used to break the window of a car and rescue a baby that was trapped inside, so we have to make sure everyone has a pistol handy during hot weather. Your example with the Katrina response is equally tenuous. That appears to have been an illegal order by the local police, which then lied to the courts about their actions. Census records were used to round up Japanese during WWII. Do we therefore stop taking a census? Police have also illegally misused driving license information and similar records (see http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html ). Do we therefore stop tracking those records? The answer to those rhetorical questions is "no". You haven't explained why this example of illegal police use of the records is meaningful, other than to say that no records should be kept, for fear of abuse. But all of this is besides the point. You said "The reason we can't talk about gun control is because both sides have problems which neither side wants to address.", but I still say that your characterization of the two sides is 1) limited, because there are more than two sides, 2) incorrect, or at least highly selective about the issues, and 3) hasn't pointed out the issues that someone like me, who is for much more restrictive gun control, isn't willing to address.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"Do we therefore stop taking a census?" No, but maybe we should stop asking people questions about their ethnicity. The census was intended to apportion legislative seats. Nothing else. There's no reason or constitutional justification for any of the other questions that they ask.
- dalke 11y ago
  Did I manage to push a hot button of yours by accident? As your comment has nothing to do with the original article or this thread.