New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 09:14 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Couple this with the fact that cops have 0 duty to protect the individual and a legal protected from doing so, all arrows point to you being responsible for you.

This surprised me a lot ! And very probably could explain the gap between you and me.

I was always told how nice, friendly, quick in reaction, responsible and helpful the U.S. cops were, even at very small things, rescuing cats and stuff, by quite a few Chinese people who lived in the U.S.

'0 duty to protect the individual' ?

I am pretty shocked.Shocking

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
@Phaedrus

This is one of those rare times I gotta disagree with you. The US didn't lose the War in Iraq to Cold War rifles. America didn't fight Iraq. They fought a war tactic, it is unwinnable, like the War on Drugs. Preposterous. We never set goals...they enemy was unknown, there was no objective... Our motivation for leaving Iraq was politics. Presidential Elections was on the horizon, you know.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 10:17 AM by Phaedrus.)
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 09:56 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  @Phaedrus

This is one of those rare times I gotta disagree with you. The US didn't lose the War in Iraq to Cold War rifles. America didn't fight Iraq. They fought a war tactic, it is unwinnable, like the War on Drugs. Preposterous. We never set goals...they enemy was unknown, there was no objective... Our motivation for leaving Iraq was politics. Presidential Elections was on the horizon, you know.

That's the point. The exact weapons used weren't what was important, it's that there was an armed insurgency. And a political end to a war, from a people losing the will to fight it, is just as sure a victory as defeating the army in battle. Both the Iraq and Vietnam wars ended due to political pressures at home, and both were losses in every important sense of the word.

Any sufficiently large group of individuals with a strong enough will to fight and enough firepower and organization to make things difficult for the dominant force, can eventually oust the enemy if their will to fight does not fade. Asymmetrical warfare.



But, as I said in my first post, this is largely a symbolic concern. The gun is a symbol of freedom, self-determination, and control. That plus the matters of self-defense, hunting, entertainment, and simple materialism is why the right to own guns is so hotly advocated for by many in the US.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 10:37 AM
Re: RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 09:35 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:14 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Couple this with the fact that cops have 0 duty to protect the individual and a legal protected from doing so, all arrows point to you being responsible for you.

This surprised me a lot ! And very probably could explain the gap between you and me.

I was always told how nice, friendly, quick in reaction, responsible and helpful the U.S. cops were, even at very small things, rescuing cats and stuff, by quite a few Chinese people who lived in the U.S.

'0 duty to protect the individual' ?

I am pretty shocked.:shocking:

Well all of those things can be true, but our supreme court ruled rightfully so that police cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for the safety of individuals, nor should or could they be. Imagine what would happen if they were. Every death that wasn't of natural causes would end up in lawsuit because the cops can't be everywhere and save people from themselves and others.

And why would you trust your safety to someone else in the 1st place? Shows how much you care.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBlackKnight's post
03-04-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Gun issues are totally symbolic on both sides and do nothing but distract people from more important issues.

The laws to stop or inhibit and armed uprising were already in place without even banning guns in the U.S. The one about bringing guns across national borders is a huge one, the law against this makes it extremely difficult to have and maintain an armed uprising considering one wouldn't be able to easily get more supplies from or hide in and out of borders as a guerilla force. The actual banning of certain guns is small shit and means nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 12:21 PM
Re: RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 10:37 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:35 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  This surprised me a lot ! And very probably could explain the gap between you and me.

I was always told how nice, friendly, quick in reaction, responsible and helpful the U.S. cops were, even at very small things, rescuing cats and stuff, by quite a few Chinese people who lived in the U.S.

'0 duty to protect the individual' ?

I am pretty shocked.:shocking:

Well all of those things can be true, but our supreme court ruled rightfully so that police cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for the safety of individuals, nor should or could they be. Imagine what would happen if they were. Every death that wasn't of natural causes would end up in lawsuit because the cops can't be everywhere and save people from themselves and others.

And why would you trust your safety to someone else in the 1st place? Shows how much you care.

I think it shows how much you fear a lot more that the case of safety gets seen as a critical police task.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 12:21 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 10:37 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Well all of those things can be true, but our supreme court ruled rightfully so that police cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for the safety of individuals, nor should or could they be. Imagine what would happen if they were. Every death that wasn't of natural causes would end up in lawsuit because the cops can't be everywhere and save people from themselves and others.

And why would you trust your safety to someone else in the 1st place? Shows how much you care.

I think it shows how much you fear a lot more that the case of safety gets seen as a critical police task.


I don't understand your comment. Could you rephrase it? Thanks.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 01:26 PM
Re: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Oh, you know, every gun owner that is self defense minded must be stricken by panic and fear and are paranoid compared to normal people, most of whom don't have a ounce of situational awareness in their bodies. Why be proactive when you can be reactive!Rolleyes


LOL. Add this to the "shoulder thingy goes up" and"heat seeking bullets that cook deer".
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...oaded.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 01:48 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 02:09 PM by ClydeLee.)
Re: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Every gun owner does what now?

If your concern over law enforcement is that they don't protect people efficiently or legitimately. It doesn't mean you don't care for your safety, it's that you don't fear it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 10:13 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:56 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  @Phaedrus

This is one of those rare times I gotta disagree with you. The US didn't lose the War in Iraq to Cold War rifles. America didn't fight Iraq. They fought a war tactic, it is unwinnable, like the War on Drugs. Preposterous. We never set goals...they enemy was unknown, there was no objective... Our motivation for leaving Iraq was politics. Presidential Elections was on the horizon, you know.

That's the point. The exact weapons used weren't what was important, it's that there was an armed insurgency. And a political end to a war, from a people losing the will to fight it, is just as sure a victory as defeating the army in battle. Both the Iraq and Vietnam wars ended due to political pressures at home, and both were losses in every important sense of the word.

Any sufficiently large group of individuals with a strong enough will to fight and enough firepower and organization to make things difficult for the dominant force, can eventually oust the enemy if their will to fight does not fade. Asymmetrical warfare.



But, as I said in my first post, this is largely a symbolic concern. The gun is a symbol of freedom, self-determination, and control. That plus the matters of self-defense, hunting, entertainment, and simple materialism is why the right to own guns is so hotly advocated for by many in the US.

Ah, okay. Disregard. When you put it like that, I agree whole-heatedly, I would have just said it differently than you.

Also, I must admit that it is hard for me to say "we" in the same sense as you. Your experiences make you who you are and all that. Having served in Afghanistan, I don't like to say "we lost". It makes me feel like I am being accused of failing, or we as a military force failed. I get a bit defensive (though I shouldn't), but I try to understand the speakers perspective and explain my word choices. For me, I would say "we" didn't fail, "the politicians failed". Don't get me wrong, I didn't even support the war in Iraq, and I don't think America should have ever set foot there, but we didn't lose because of inferior weapons, training, cowardice, etc. We as a nation failed because it wasn't supported by the people, and because it wasn't a justifiable war.

@I&I,

That is the most sensible thing you have ever said, ever. I generally agree. It feels weird typing that. I would say I disagree with one aspect, the armed uprising. People often assume that the military would quelch any rebellion, but they fail to consider that service members are individuals who take sides as well. When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: