More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[BIGUN 1,051]

4 hours ago, normiss said:

I wonder what the founder's perspective on 3D printing weapons was.

They'd say, "You need to get a Type 07 FFL."

[billvon 2,396]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

He didn't offer a solution nor list any laws that he might be referring to.

If you read the post I was replying to, this was in response to a 5th Circuit Court decision which states that people who have been charged with domestic abuse are now allowed to keep their guns (in this case, so they can continue shooting at people.)

Quote

The sample of the general public in this case should also encompass all the innocent that have been murdered

Feel free to do your own.  As I stated, I used mass shootings, since they pose a much higher risk to the general public than (for example) gun suicides or criminal vs criminal shootings.

Or just complain that no one is doing your work for you; that's popular here too.

[Coreece 190]

15 hours ago, jakee said:

it is nice to hear you’re in favour of the defund the police movement. More people should be.

It's hard these days to know what a person means when they say 'defund the police' as I certainly support effective law enforcement, but I think Weber's use of law enforcement being "defanged" is a pretty helpful illustration.

[Coreece 190]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

I was replying to, this was in response to a 5th Circuit Court decision which states that people who have been charged with domestic abuse are now allowed to keep their guns

Well that's one of the foremost issues I've advocated against in these threads over the years so that's unfortunate and certainly a step backward.

6 hours ago, billvon said:

Or just complain that no one is doing your work for you; that's popular here too.

Well that's kinda funny given that you're the one that made the claim and now asking others to do the work since it's too difficult for you to figure out if criminals are more of a threat to the general public than law abiding citizens.

[billvon 2,396]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Well that's kinda funny given that you're the one that made the claim and now asking others to do the work 

Nope.  You don't have to do any work that you don't want to do.  You are free to just complain.

Ain't freedom great?

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Well that's kinda funny given that you're the one that made the claim and now asking others to do the work 

Nope.  You don't have to do any work that you don't want to do.  You are free to just complain.

My focus and interest are more centered around possible solutions related to those complaints.  As you may or may not know, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was passed last year and there's a lot to unpack.  Some issues it addresses:

-Additional requirements for background checks.

-Additional provisions for school violence prevention.

-Provisions for mental health services.

-$800,000,000 for Health Surveillance Programs? 

-BILLIONS for a community violence intervention and prevention initiatives!

-Provisions for additional policing?

-Provisions for suicide prevention.

-Provisions for extreme risk protection order programs (red flag laws) 

Obviously the violence prevention programs are good news, so I guess I can stop bitching about that for now.  Just trying to figure out the specifics on how/where they going to be implemented here in Michigan.

Little concerned about the additional policing and the country's historical woes of "unintended consequences" under Biden's Violent Crime Act of 1994 as there doesn't seem to be much info on specific guidelines or national standards, so hopefully this isn't history repeating itself.

Trying to understand the Health Surveillance Programs and how that data is gathered/handled by various organizations and how it relates to red flag laws and additional requirements for Background checks.

 

Also, your comment about AR-15's makes me question if you're arguing in good faith.  Even if you are, it seems any results would be inconclusive given the problems with your sample that I mentioned.  I mean, if we don't have enough information, it's ok to say that we just don't know.  Unless of course you're just looking for a reason to entertain your selective bias and beat conservatives over the head with it, which you do pretty much on a daily basis.

 

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Ain't freedom great?

Yep, supporting a cause should come from the heart, not a political playbook. Unity is not uniformity, so why waste it by following the herd mentality of those who prioritize division and political gain over genuine progress? Groove to your own rhythm, and let the positive impact of your actions speak louder than any political rhetoric.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's hard these days to know what a person means when they say 'defund the police' as I certainly support effective law enforcement, 

Is it? Why? If you want effective social work programs as well as effective law enforcement agencies then you support defunding the police.

[wmw999 2,120]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Is it? Why? If you want effective social work programs as well as effective law enforcement agencies then you support defunding the police.

This, exactly.

Wendy P.

[Coreece 190]

13 hours ago, jakee said:

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's hard these days to know what a person means when they say 'defund the police' as I certainly support effective law enforcement, 

Is it? Why? If you want effective social work programs as well as effective law enforcement agencies then you support defunding the police.

That's fine, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm somehow embittered or indignant to the point that I'm going to go out and protest or show contempt for law enforcement.  Or even worse, start throwing rocks and setting police cars on fire which might give the impression of anarchy or wanting to get rid of police altogether in some areas, which might turn off would be supporters.

Also, maybe 'defund' is too strong of a word.  Simply reducing the amount of financial support isn't necessarily going to solve the problem in and of itself, nor would giving more money necessarily exacerbate the problem or allow it to persist, after all they're going to need extra funds for better training and more qualified personnel.

It also might help to make a distinction between police brutality and racial disparities, which in my mind are two sperate issues.  For example, by isolating racial disparities it allows us to focus on the problems directly causing that disparity such as racism and implicit bias.  It also helps to identify other factors beyond the woes of the law enforcement that are also contributing to the disparity, such as socioeconomic constructs and the fact that blacks more often than whites live in densely populated areas where there are more police in general, thus increasing the number of interactions in a dipropionate manner.

Then once the disparity is equalized, we can say ok, now let's start focusing on the reasons for brutality across the board in general as it relates to all people. By doing so, I think it helps to us to address the problems more thoroughly and maximize support.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

That's fine, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm somehow embittered or indignant to the point that I'm going to go out and protest or show contempt for law enforcement.  Or even worse, start throwing rocks and setting police cars on fire which might give the impression of anarchy or wanting to get rid of police altogether in some areas, which might turn off would be supporters.

You wouldn't. Not to anyone who's taking the subject seriously.

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Also, maybe 'defund' is too strong of a word.  Simply reducing the amount of financial support isn't necessarily going to solve the problem in and of itself, nor would giving more money necessarily exacerbate the problem or allow it to persist, after all they're going to need extra funds for better training and more qualified personnel.

That's where you are 100% exactly wrong. More funding to the police does exacerbate the problem, because so many municipalities funding the police already don't have the money to do any damn thing else because they're paying so much for the police. 

Like the 9-year old girl with emotional problems who was handcuffed then pepper sprayed in the back of a cop car after police were called for her protection. The city could pay for 6+ squad cars and a score of officers to respond, plus the enormous cost of defending then settling the inevitable lawsuit but it can't afford one social worker to be available for children in her situation in the first place. those things are very much linked.

When communities aren't spending so much money on the police and can therefore afford social workers, they don't need to send so much money on the police because they're not paying them to spend half their time being shit social workers.

Edited February 8, 2023 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,121]

44 minutes ago, jakee said:

That's where you are 100% exactly wrong. More funding to the police does exacerbate the problem, because so many municipalities funding the police already don't have the money to do any damn thing else because they're paying so much for the police. 

Agreed, unless funding goes towards establishing national training standards and verification.

[billvon 2,396]

15 hours ago, jakee said:

Is it? Why? If you want effective social work programs as well as effective law enforcement agencies then you support defunding the police.

I don't support defunding the police.  I do support REfunding the police, and dividing them into enforcement and public assistance divisions.  Get more mental health professionals to deal with psychotic homeless people.  Get more workers trained at de-escalating domestic violence cases, which are some of the hairiest calls untrained police face.

Bank robbery?  Send the enforcement division.  Crazy homeless guy in a Wal-Mart?  Get the public assistance division.  Domestic violence case?  Probably need one of each.

[BIGUN 1,051]

26 minutes ago, billvon said:

Get more mental health professionals to deal with psychotic homeless people.  Get more workers trained at de-escalating domestic violence cases, which are some of the hairiest calls untrained police face.

Bank robbery?  Send the enforcement division.  Crazy homeless guy in a Wal-Mart?  Get the public assistance division.  Domestic violence case?  Probably need one of each.

This

[JoeWeber 2,297]

18 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Agreed, unless funding goes towards establishing national training standards and verification.

Jakee is right about my town, Molalla, Oregon, that's sure. 10,000 population, $19 Million Budget, and a fiscal year 2021-2022 $3,759,000 Police budget for 17 cops of which $2,579,000 is for salaries and benefits. That's $151,705.88 per year per cop in salaries and benefits and $211,764.71 per year per cop total. How can that be seen as either sustainable or justifiable? 

[jakee 1,254]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

I don't support defunding the police.  I do support REfunding the police, and dividing them into enforcement and public assistance divisions.  Get more mental health professionals to deal with psychotic homeless people.  Get more workers trained at de-escalating domestic violence cases, which are some of the hairiest calls untrained police face.

First, that doesn’t get you any closer to addressing the prevention vs cure imbalance.

Secind, the idea that mental health professionals responding to mental health problems should work for the police simply comes from being conditioned to seeing the police doing that job, doesn’t it? (And there’s a world of other mental health calls they respond to in addition to ‘psychotic hobo’)

[wmw999 2,120]

One of the local towns (Amherst) is trying something like that; they have a new Community Responders department (being Amherst, it's Community Responders for Equity, Safety, and Service), which has started to respond to calls based on the 911 evaluation and the request of the people asking for help.

They're probably not getting it completely right, but if someone doesn't try something, then the needle will never change. Eventually someone will call and request CRESS in bad faith (i.e. planning violence), and police will start to have to accompany them. But hopefully, too, on the kinds of calls they're designed for (mental health, loitering, homeless, etc), they'll start to figure out what does work, as well.

My town is working on their approach as well; it's not as far along, but that's OK. If towns don't try this kind of thing, cities never will.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,396]

9 hours ago, jakee said:

First, that doesn’t get you any closer to addressing the prevention vs cure imbalance.

Well, neither do firefighters.  They rely on the NFPA for that.  They are two different organizations - but both are necessary.

Quote

Secind, the idea that mental health professionals responding to mental health problems should work for the police simply comes from being conditioned to seeing the police doing that job, doesn’t it?

I don't think they should work FOR police.  I think they should work WITH police.  Call it whatever you like.  If you still want to call the combined force "police" that's fine with me.  If you want to call it "public safety agency" and have police and public assistance under that heading, I am also fine with that.  To me the names don't really matter.  It's what they do that matters.

[kallend 1,623]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

One of the local towns (Amherst) is trying something like that; they have a new Community Responders department (being Amherst, it's Community Responders for Equity, Safety, and Service), which has started to respond to calls based on the 911 evaluation and the request of the people asking for help.

They're probably not getting it completely right, but if someone doesn't try something, then the needle will never change. Eventually someone will call and request CRESS in bad faith (i.e. planning violence), and police will start to have to accompany them. But hopefully, too, on the kinds of calls they're designed for (mental health, loitering, homeless, etc), they'll start to figure out what does work, as well.

My town is working on their approach as well; it's not as far along, but that's OK. If towns don't try this kind of thing, cities never will.

Wendy P.

Cut it however you like.  Loonies with guns are more dangerous than loonies without guns.

[brenthutch 383]

New York learns a lesson and has to sacrifice $21,000 of taxpayer dollars to the 2nd Amendment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/11/new-york-gun-buyback-rules-3d-printed-parts

It just goes to show how freedom loving Americans will always be one step ahead of bungling politicians.

[BIGUN 1,051]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

freedom loving Americans will always be one step ahead of bungling politicians.

Until the ATF shows up to arrest him for manufacturing without a license. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

56 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

New York learns a lesson and has to sacrifice $21,000 of taxpayer dollars to the 2nd Amendment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/11/new-york-gun-buyback-rules-3d-printed-parts

It just goes to show how freedom loving Americans will always be one step ahead of bungling politicians.

And the dead kids from Uvalde and Park Place cheer them on, America Fuck Yeah!!

[jakee 1,254]

On 2/9/2023 at 4:41 PM, billvon said:

Well, neither do firefighters.  They rely on the NFPA for that.  They are two different organizations - but both are necessary.

Does firefighting take up such a huge proportion of public funds that there is nothing left for building code inspectors?

[kleggo 138]

IMO the world would be a much better place if ALL "guns" vaporized overnight.

then it's just hand to hand combat with edged weapons

Edited February 10, 2023 by kleggo

[brenthutch 383]

54 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Until the ATF shows up to arrest him for manufacturing without a license. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use

 

“Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?

No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution.”

[billvon 2,396]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Does firefighting take up such a huge proportion of public funds that there is nothing left for building code inspectors?

No.  Just as police do not take up such a huge proportion of public funds that there is nothing left for EMT's or hospitals.