Forbidden Donut

Uh. Wrong. It's difficult to get a permit to carry, but not impossible. I know 3 people who have permits, and none of them are, or have ever been, the po po.

There is a combination of 3 things in NYC law that makes it really difficult to get a license. First of all, licenses are all granted through the police commissioner. So there's a line. Second and third: "No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant of good moral character and concerning whom no good cause exists for denial. As a further restriction, you cannot get a license to have your gun in the city if you don't live in the city.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Do you disagree that the gun laws in NYC are prohibitively restrictive? Do you disagree that arming police with automatic weapons on the busiest night of the year is probably unwise, and perhaps one of the only ways that the city could make that night MORE dangerous?

I agree with increasing their police force, but giving out more automatic weapons shouldn't be necessary. It is a 350% increase. Should there be automatic weapons available to police officers? Yes. Should they promote the use of automatic weapons? Not unless it is necessary. Was New Year's eve/day that bad in New York last year?

It's unrelated to last years NYE/D party thing. It's related to Mumbai. Yes.

Terrorists in Mumbai, India shot 172 people
.'.
Police in New York City, USA need automatic weapons.

It's important to note, that while wildly successful, this particular attack in Mumbai is one of dozens that occur in India damn near every year. Police in NYC are using this one highly reported incident as a way to frighten the population into acceptance of an absolutely draconian measure.

Oh... so it is related to the whole India wants to ban Google Earth deal (because the terrorists used Google Earth to find the locations and get a decent map of the area).

It's also the reason that India will give in a few months when they start raiding the border. 100's of attack go unreported in American media = no problems here... just a little tension. 1 attack gets reported in the American media and boom. Suddenly it's justifiable to suggest a conflict between two nuclear powers... If our reporters had any idea how much power they really wielded their heads would explode.

MMMMMMMMMMM fear.....

its each persons decision whether they want to live in a metropolitan area or not. you choose to do so and i think its reasonable to expect a heightened level of security. barring the m4s i think that general principle can be fair.

I agree that a heightened level of security is not only reasonable but perhaps warranted. We've been overdue for another attack for about a year now, and I'm sure we make a pleasant target while we flail around in our little recession. Giving assault weapons to 1,000 officers who've never shot one before and unleashing them into a crowd is not "heightened security" it's madness. I imagine something happening, there being a lot of yelling and then an officer or a terrorist pulls a trigger and 600 people die because you can't be really discerning with an M4...

I kinda get your point about it being madness, but are you positive that they've never shot these guns before? They may not have shot them before in a real situation, but I'm pretty sure that they will have at least have practiced in a shooting range.

Have at least a little faith in their training.

And don't give a few examples of cops shooting at dogs claiming 'for no reason' when it says right in the article that the dog "kept approaching like it was going to bite him."

You make it sound like there is some wide-spread trend going on with gun happy cops opening fire on crowds with automatic weapons.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Exactly. This is the hypocrisy of Andrew. He tries putting out fire with fire.



His #1 method of debate is to try and instill some sort of fear, while at the same time claim that those who instill fear in people are idiots/assholes/unpatriotic/whatever else he can possibly think of.

You hit it on the nose, reddy; this is the main reason why I have stopped discussing issues with him.

There need not be a "wide spread trend" for it to be a cause for concern. In an institution like the police there is a common fallacy made in which people claim that one bad apple doesn't mean a spoiled barrel. Well yeah... it does. The allowance of corruption in an institution demonstrates the weakness of the institution.

Meanwhile, yes, I'm certain they have not received formal training on these weapons because they have started receiving it NOW.

It's not my fault that posting inflammatory shit to spice up what I feel to be an important debate is the only way to get you people involved. Let's remove it all.

HERE:
Is equipping police with automatic weapons for one day only an appropriate and measured response to the threats posed by terrorist actions like those encountered by the Indian government? I'd say no, and I'd follow up by saying that I think it's extremely dangerous to arm police so much more heavily than civilians are even permitted to be, particularly when there is a division of our police force that is HIGHLY trained on Special Weapons and Tactics and ready to respond to just such a scenario.
You gonna not respond to that because I made it big?

I'm also guessing that you only read one of those articles, redbone. So: Here are some more for you to ignore.

It's also absolutely incomparable to be afraid of Pakistani Terrorists as it is to be afraid of the transformation of our country in a police state. You know better. I think.

/I doubt that's why you don't debate me.

"Arguing and debating on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. No matter who wins, you are all a bunch of retards."
-Anonymous

You're no fun. Stoke them, love them, embrace... the flames.

I don't really see the point of that article. 30lbs of marijuana is a lot. Nothing in that article makes it seem like the police did anything terribly wrong. If they raided the house because there was 30 lbs of pot there (I can understand why this would happen) and the dogs attacked, I'm not sure how much alternative they had? But I'm just assuming that the dogs attacked as they entered the house. They could have sniped them from outside in their cars.

Sure that's just the first article. I read the others too. It was painful. In most of them the police are claiming self defense. Since I wasn't there I have no idea what really happened. But I'm not going to say police are evil dog shooters because of a few sappy articles you found.

Here, have some of mine. Since you can throw links at an argument to prove your point, I think I will too.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/new.../dog-bites.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art...?articlekey=572
Dogs killing little children while they sleep? Holy cow batman.

Thats exactly what I noticed...

hahahahahahaha you're going to blame andrew for the crappy debates you idiots have?

governor is the only person who debates in these forums who isn't a complete moron

Really? While I agree that he isn't a complete moron, I can definitely think of some good arguments that weren't moronic either, so calling a portion of the forums complete morons seems a bit exaggerated.

Also, you aren't fireproof! FLAME ON!

I choose to suck Dan's dick because he has good grammar.

QSYCEA (Quoted so you can't edit away)

So while my point is that arming police with automatic weapons isn't an appropriate or measured reaction to the threat of terrorist attack, your counter point is -- Dogs can be dangerous.

I concede! You win. Dogs can be dangerous. Now what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Cite one substantive instance of a Labrador Retriever attacking somebody that isn't a cop. Just one. I'm not asking for multiples here. Cause several of those stories where cops say the dog attacked them are about labs. Many are about the dog being shot in the back as it ran away. Still others talk about how the cop shot the dog while kids stood by and watched. While maybe not the norm, there are numerous (I'm talking thousands and thousands) of stories about police's failures to exercise discretion. Feel free to defend as necessary for a well armed, well trained, well protected group of professionals actions which include shooting sleeping people and setting fire to people's homes to flush them out though.

edit: And while this thread does reak of me being afraid of a fear driven reaction... I'd sure like you to flesh out this "#1 method of debate" claim. Typically, I cite articles and charts. Then you tell me that my econ101 teacher (by the FUCKING way I never took economics and that's REALLY an asinine way of talking down to somebody. But maybe your logic101 teacher taught you that one, huh?) and I react by citing more, which doesn't get responded to. Probably because I tend to type with an angry tenor, because frankly this isn't debate at all.

Wait, are we all fighting here?

Talking about cops shooting dogs as self defense reminded me of this... and I QQ'ed inside.

All I got out of this thread was that Alfy is openly homosexual.

-dan

By the way, I took four logic courses and none of them teach "talking down" or debate; that's not really what the subject of logic is.

I know you were just joking, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

I like ANunes in debates. He doesnt listen to what I say but he gives logical answers that most people with his point of view cannot give and so I learn from it. And about the cops shooting dogs.. I didnt read any of the articles but the reason I think our police system is trustworthy is that when those types of incidents occur (ie shooting something for no reason), the cops get punished. It might not be the best punishment, but it means a lot as a symbol of what the system stands for compared to third world countries that let their police run wild.

i forgot dan mungo jedd and alfy

proceed

http://www.kptv.com/news/14920969/detail.html

The thing is, they don't get punished nearly as often as you seem to believe. All they need to say is the dog was attacking them and they can get away with anything. And even when punished these accidents continue.

Don't get me wrong, police here are way better than they are in third world countries. But if you have to compare one of the aspect of our culture to that of a third world nation to draw a parallel, then I don't think that it necessarily strengthens your argument.

Andrew, just to clarify on the original topic, are you against having the police armed in such a way at all, or are you against arming a portion of the police force that you don't feel has the needed training and/or experience for those weapons?

I have two fundamental problems with the situation.
1. Police being armed more heavily than anybody in the population is permitted to be legally is a really great first step towards a police state. It won't happen overnight, but this is what it takes to get there.

and 2. There is no need for this kind of armament in this situation, and should the need arise there is a group of highly trained people on stand by. In NYC they are called ESU, and are actually better trained than SWAT.

So to directly answer your question, yes. I am "against" having 'regular' police armed in this way and I'm also "against" giving weapons to police who lack the needed training and/or experience. I'm also annoyed by the fact that I can't tell what they are afraid will happen that they believe this kind of armament would be appropriate for.

This one?

that picture is awesome!! hell if id ever want to be there though ;x

Agreed. I hate crowds, but that's an epic crowd...

Now imagine if there were a thousand M4's around that. How the hell is that supposed to do... anything. How can you even use them!?

so you think that whatever the police are aloud to carry a civilian should be as well? just to clarify.

Every topic you make about police makes me laugh because you really know nothing about us. You know from times when you were a young punk skateboarder. You dont know what happened in any of those situations or how things went down. You dont know how much training or experience these officers have with these guns. Do you know where they get members of the SWAT team from? Do you know that they are just sitting there hoping for something to happen?

They get them from the police. Police who have 10+ years experience, and a fitness test, numerous interviews, shooting ability test, and show that he can work with a team. Otherwise, no Special Weapons and Tactics for you. You're just a cop. Why go through all that trouble if you aren't going to use them for the situation for which they were designed.

Often, Wedge, the people who belong to a group are the least qualified to discuss the merits of that group. Ask a born again christian whether their church is a good place or not and they'll say yes. Even if the church embezzles funds, kicks out gay people and works with the mob. Fancy that.



And I'll be damned if I'm going to trust the guy who's job is on the line to tell me.

I also get frequently frustrated by Andrew's quickness to assume a police officer is always in the wrong (or will be in the wrong), but I have to agree with both of these points.

Overall, this whole over-arming of police is ridiculous. I know many cops, and most of them are really responsible people that consistently exercise fantastic judgment. Some of them are far less responsible, and their status in the force is far higher than I feel comfortable about.

But regardless of how responsible they are, when you arm thousands of cops with assault rifles and have them patrol one of the most densely-populated celebrations in the country, it only takes a single fuck-up by one of the cops (or one of the citizens for that matter) for a whole hell of a lot of people to get hurt.

And I don't know what New York city's gun laws are, but if a cop can legally carry an assault rifle, then I find it appalling that other citizens could not do the same.

I'm not trying to suggest that police are irresponsible douchenozzles. That's not the point. But if I don't use citations, then I can't rightly ask other people to. And since I like to see claims backed up, I tend to practice what I preach. When I'm talking about outrageous police situations I happen to like to set the tenor by pointing out that police aren't guardian angels who protect and serve and can do no wrong, but are human like you and I. No amount of training changes that and guess what? There are a bunch of stories that corroborate this claim.

It's not about whether cops are always in the wrong, or will always be in the wrong. It's about an institution that is allowed to run rampant because people get all pissy when a guy like me suggests that maybe there's something wrong with what they are doing and shut it out.

You should be less concerned with Obama and the liberals taking your guns than you are with regular police being more armed than you.

People don't get pissy at you because you suggest that maybe there's something wrong with what cops are doing; they get pissy at you because they're sick of you always trashing the police in near-everything they do. I'm not trying to start an argument with you on the subject -- I agree with 95% of the stuff you say when it comes to cops, I'm just pointing out how it is. I have plenty of discussions with people about how awful cops are, and I don't run into a wall of resistance every time. I assume this is because my discussions tend to focus on individual incidents without trying to generalize all of the different police institutions throughout the country and because I don't press the issue every single time a man-in-blue is brought up.

As for your last sentence, I'm concerned with both the liberals taking my guns and regular police being more armed than me. In fact, I consider both issues to be largely the same.

I just don't tend to bring up police stories where everything went great because we all know that that is the norm.

This is what brought this conversation to a screeching halt.

"But in NYC you can't get a permit to carry a weapon unless you're a cop, or an ex-cop. (Because cops never wave guns around in children's faces. They have never shot dogs for no reason. And they never shoot the wrong person.)"

Now the permit thing isn't 100% accurate and I corrected myself when called on it (because I did some research to find out EXACTLY what the laws were). I ran into resistance mostly because I cited a bunch of stories about how cops make mistakes in spite of all their training. This should make people slightly apprehensive about seeing heavily armed police. But nope... apart from Evestay (and the people who more or less agree) all I heard was how sick people are of me hating on cops. ... and stories about dogs biting children...

I didn't start this as a flame war, or as a way of hating on cops, or as a way of disrespecting the service of anybody here. I merely stated facts and misrepresented the gun laws in new york city a bit. The criticisms met for this were, as I read them, baseless and backhanded comments about me used as justification for ignoring my argument. That shit pisses me off a whole lot.

Its like the boy who cried wolf. You often talk bad about the police in any thread that it is relevant, so people are going to assume that you are saying what you are now about the police in a derogatory way. I'd usually assume, in any situation, that the person(s) in charge made a good decision, and are innocent of any wrong-doing. However, if there is an issue with it, the people that are involved have avenues to get the justice they deserve.

I didn't ignore your argument at all. I merely disagreed with what you were contending, until the flaming took off. I'm blunt. If I see something that doesn't make sense to me, and I feel like posting about it, I'm going to call you out on it.

And I can't stand being belittled. That makes it personal, and completely destroys potential for reasonable debate. I'll give you saying "And don't give a few examples of cops shooting at dogs claiming 'for no reason' when it says right in the article that the dog "kept approaching like it was going to bite him."" may have been asking for it , but my point still stands. Even though you think it should, it doesn't make me any more apprehensive about seeing heavily armed police than that idea already does. Those articles are at too small a scale to propound your argument. If you wanted to educate me about things going wrong when guns meet people without them, then the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, or the police during the time of the LA riots would be much better examples out of history than those you used.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread was for you. But in response to the discussion that has been going on lately, I'm very concerned about what the police are doing, at both the scale of local practice, and the laws they enforce. But I'm not sure I agree with the concern that cops are more armed than the average gun-wielding citizen. I can see why police forces might need something other than a hunting rifle or shotgun, and a pistol that would be used in self defense. I can even see why they would need sub-machine guns, or even something like an m4. But I don't know why people need to be walking around with sub-machine guns in their back pocket.

I realize this is a sticky issue and a very fine line so I want to clarify. I'm secure with the police being able to have an open show of force. But I also think restricting the caliber and technology of the weapons allowed into citizens hands is a bad idea. That doesn't mean that police and citizens should be able to be in public places with the same firepower.

1. With the exception of the police possibly being equipped with rifles capable of full automatic fire, there is no difference between the capability they will have and what normal citizens can own, even in NY. For example, the Mini-14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-14) has every single bit of capability of an m4 like what the police are armed with, with the exception of automatic fire, and there are no licenses required. The only other difference is the m4 is a "big, black rifle." Oooo, scary. That being said, every single one of those officers are taught to use their weapons on semi-automatic fire, not automatic. The only point I may agree with you on is the limited training. The officers are receiving 3 days of training. Yes, it could be more, but compare that to say...the Navy. During basic training you get a day of classroom lessons, and a day or two of live fire. But I guess they have no idea what they are doing.

2. In just about every situation available, a rifle is a superior tool then a handgun. It's more accurate, handles better, and is more intuitive to use then a handgun. Both the semi-automatic pistols and the m4 have an identical rate of fire; every time you pull the trigger a bullet comes out. The difference is, with a rifle the first and every shotafter are much more likely to be on target because of better stability and less felt recoil, and in the case of an m4 better bullet accuracy.

3. The lack of police being able to arm themselves has repeatably left them vulnerable throughout history. The 20's were notorious for the fighting between the police and gangsters over alcohol, and had the problem with the police being constantly out gunned. The 1986 FBI shootout in Miami was a direct result of the FBI agents being outgunned versus two attackers. Despite being hit several times, the attackers continued to fight on and keep the agents pinned down by rifle fire. The most famous is probably the North Hollywood shootout where 2 armored and armed men kept police at bay because the police didn't have weapons or ammunition capable of piercing their armor, ending with 17 injured people. But I'm sure in all those cases, the attackers were only retaliating because cops get off shooting innocent little doggies.

4. The problem with relying on SWAT, or ESU in this case, is that the Mumbai style attacks were hostage situations like what HRT teams are trained for. They were active shooters that move from place to place killing indiscriminately, not a bad guy holed up in a building shouting out demands. Never mind the fact, how do you expect them to respond to any situation in a timely matter when the streets are clogged with literally millions of people.

5. This isn't a measure that you take because you want to stop an attack once it starts. This is something you do to say, "this city isn't going to be a victim." Suddenly, on that night of the year, NYC isn't an easy target.

6. I'm as much a proponent on the Right to Bear arms as anyone on this forum, and probably more then most. But I also believe in the ability of the police to have access to every tool needed to do their job, and this is just another tool in the toolbox.

I totally agree with your last statement, and I am 100% fine with cops having access to every tool needed to uphold the law and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, however that doesn't discount the fact that in this scenario the police are going to be carrying more firepower than their fellow citizens can legally obtain. It's horseshit. Treat everyone the same; is that really so hard?

So because it is hard to get a gun, it is a shitty place to live?

Makes sense

(did not read this thread)

They can legally obtain them, (see the mini-14 I posted, does everything their m4s do with the exception of full auto) but they most likely can't carry them out in the open down the street. That may be a NY law, I don't know. I do know some states you can open carry anything you can legally own. It just isn't worth the head ache because every other soccer mom is going to be calling the police because you have a gun. I don't really see the point in wanting to carry a rifle down a city street...especially on New Years Eve. That's a recipe for trouble, no matter if it is legal or not.

For the record, people can own m4s too if they want. You need a Class III license to own one most similar to the one the police have, because of the length, removable mag, and collapsible stock, but you can still do it. If it's a 16" barrel and fixed stock, you can own it without a Class III.

Well you have three cases of police being outgunned. Which are of course the result of bad people. I have thousands and thousands and thousands of stories waiting to be found on the internet which should demonstrate that police have a tendency to overreact to a situation before completely assessing it. (Not getting off on shooting innocent little doggies... please...)

The 20's are a direct result of prohibition. That's not a defense for overarming police. It's a defense for not passing shitty laws.

Your injury/deathcount total minus the 20's? 19... an impressive justification for overarming police to be sure.

And you said it yourself in number 4 there. How do you expect them to respond to ANY situation in a timely manner when the streets are clogged with millions of people? Well, the obvious thing to do is to have ESU there. I contend however that the fears are a load of dookie and even if something happened there are millions of people clogging the streets.

If we're just arming them as a deterrent then why not do it all year around? Why not just train them like the military, put them in full armor and give them fully-automatic weapons and rocket launchers. Nobody will fuck with that shit.

Police are there to "protect and serve" not "scare people into submission".


yeah... no shit.

"It is unlawful to possess or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in public. Unloaded shotguns or rifles carried or possessed in public must be completely enclosed or contained in a nontransparent carrying case."
and
"To obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun the applicant is required to show that "proper cause" exists for the issuance of the license. The decision to issue or deny this license is within the discretion of the commissioner and his decision will only be overturned by a court if it can be shown that he abused his discretion."

NYC laws are particularly prohibitive. Unless you're a cop. This isn't false, or slander, or misrepresentation. This is fact. No police commissioner would grant you a license to carry your mini-14 any more than they'd let you get a mortar.

The whole point of arming the police with m4's for this event is to prepare them for the event of an attack and to make a statement to any would-be terrorists. What do you propose would be a viable alternative to warding off another Mumbai attack? Are you saying we should simply dismiss the potential and do nothing? The absolute last thing I want is for a terrorist attack to happen, and have NYC caught with its pants down.

Pheylan made it clear that SWAT and ESU are trained in a different kind of hostage situation, where the bad guys are holed up in one spot.

The way I'm looking at this is: There is a group of terrorists moving throughout the area, indiscriminately shooting people. Because they are moving, throughout a crowded area, it makes it harder for a single group to get into a position to be able to stop them. Even if there are a couple groups, the amount of time it would take to be able to locate, get too, and end the situation would be substantial. What NYC is doing is spreading firepower sufficient to stop the situation in an accurate and precise manner throughout the area in the form of 2,000 police officers with M4s. This way the chances of someone capable of ending the threat being within range to do so is greatly increased.

"The 20's are a direct result of prohibition. That's not a defense for overarming police. It's a defense for not passing shitty laws."
Blame the lawmakers not the criminals? Please don't get in a habit of doing this!

And for New York on New Years. I would be fine if the cops set up a parameter around Times Square with checkpoints and they manned those checkpoints with m4s. They could search each person going into the celebration and then they wouldn't have to let half-trained cops walking around the festivities with huge guns. You have to get to Times Square like 8 hours early anyway and stand around the whole time without being able to go to the bathroom...so going through checkpoints is no big deal in my opinion.

I've always blamed lawmakers for manufacturing criminals. But that's beside the point. It's not a blame game, it's just some plain old truths. Before prohibition there was a limited black market for a number of goods. During prohibition a black market thrived and as a way of protecting their market the criminals armed themselves with tommy guns. No amount of legislation prevented this, and no amount of enforcement changed it. Prohibition ended and lo, so did the crazy amounts of gun violence.

Drugs were made illegal one by one, the black market opened up, smaller gangs cropped up in every major city to fill that market out, they illegally acquired guns capable of terrifying one another and the police into leaving them be. Guns abounded and gun violence shot up again and there it remains, driven not by people being terrible humans, but by a black market created by our government so that DuPont could line their pockets, Hearst could write his racist headlines, and pharma companies could stay afloat with their snake oil.

And yeah, I'd be *okay* with that scenario. At least it would assuage my concerns of a single mistake leading to a massacre. I still think that letting police outgun law abiding citizens while still experiencing tremendous amounts of gun crime perpetrated with illegally obtained guns is pretty fucking stupid though. Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. It actually makes it easier to get, and throws you in jail if your caught having it, forcing people like you and I to pay for them to live in jail.

Those bootleggers of the 20s and gangs of today did nothing else wrong besides sell alcohol and drugs that should have been legal, huh? They didn't dabble in prostitution or murder or anything and if they did it was only because they were stuck selling drugs that should have been legal, right? A drug criminal is completely innocent? A criminal is a criminal is a criminal in my opinion. Mess with the law and man up to the damn consequences.