h a l f b a k e r ySee website for details.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Anybody over 18 may join provided they pass the same
background tests and training of a police officer. Here's the
only difference:
They don't wear uniforms, they don't get paid, and their
weapons are concealed.
This would be a great message to give to any psychos,
terrorists or other trouble
makers in society: In any given
crowd, on average, 3% of that group are armed, highly
trained police officers that receive regular training in how
to
arrest or kill you if you pull a gun. The fact that they're
volunteers won't really factor into the bad guy's planning.
What I've read about most auxiliary police forces around
the
world is that they're less trained, less armed if they're
armed
at all and basically useless. These are real, specially
trained
police officers who simply do it for free. They wouldn't
hand
out traffic tickets, deal with domestic disturbances, break
up
bar fights, they'd just be there in case a dangerous criminal
was threatening to hurt innocent civilians.
Didn't do much research on this, but I wasn't able to find
anything exactly like this. If it has been done, (and I'd be
kind of surprised if it hasn't) I'm curious
why it's not
more common because it seems like a good idea.
Based on expanding this idea
Student_20Militia
which I think sounds pretty good if it's done right. [doctorremulac3, May 24 2014]
Studies of civilians reacting to gunman situations were not promising...
http://abcnews.go.c...20/video?id=7312687
[RayfordSteele, May 26 2014]
Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093756/
[xaviergisz, May 26 2014]
http://www.youtube....watch?v=3z-a5hy7QO8
[calum, May 27 2014]
Baked
http://www.lapdonli...tent_basic_view/542
Guess LAPD didn't think it was such a stupid idea. [doctorremulac3, May 27 2014]
Nonofficial
http://www.nytimes....nded&pgtype=article
Official examples needed? [4and20, Dec 12 2015]
Concealed carry numbers by state
https://www.gunstoc...d-carry-statistics/
Cali is kinda far down compared to population. [RayfordSteele, Jan 08 2019]
[link]
|
| |
Well, the first thought that came to mind was Israel, where citizens walk around with military weaponry and nobody gets upset about it. |
|
| |
But I think they're pretty gung-ho about all their citizenry going through at least a brief military stint. |
|
| |
I think you'd get a lot of creepy wannabe cops in the lot. And I don't think the 3% factor is going to get included in most bad guys planning. |
|
| |
I can't help thinking that all of these ideas relating
to gun ownership are intended to solve the
problems caused by gun ownership. |
|
| |
//I think you'd get a lot of creepy wannabe cops in
the lot.// |
|
| |
They'd have to pass the same background check and
psychological profiling as any other police officer. |
|
| |
//I can't help thinking that all of these ideas relating
to gun ownership are intended to solve the problems
caused by gun ownership.// |
|
| |
There are problems with outlawing the citizen's right
to defend themselves as well. |
|
| |
//There are problems with outlawing the citizen's
right to defend themselves as well.// |
|
| |
Agreed. It's important that criminals and non-
criminals are equally well-armed, but it's then a
matter of deciding at what level. |
|
| |
I say have lots of policemen. If there are citizens
willing to do the work for free, such as with a
volunteer fire department, this would be a good
thing. |
|
| |
Not sure what the bone is, but this is just an idea to
have lots more fully trained police officers. There are
smart, reliable sane people who would do this. |
|
| |
For one thing, there are many people out there who
are way overqualified to be police officers who might
want to do their part to keep their community safe.
People
who make a lot of money owning businesses, doctors,
engineers etc that would be civic minded enough to
also put in time helping to defend against crime. |
|
| |
I'll up the anti. Make the qualifications to be a citizen
deputy much, much harder than for being a beat cop. |
|
| |
Higher IQ, minimum income requirements starting at
six figures annually, more stringent mental health
and physical requirements. Make it a
badge of honor to be able to do this. |
|
| |
I hate to say this but I've knows some cops that were
dumb as a sack of hammers and out of their f-in
minds. I would propose this honorable position would
be available only to the elite of the elite of society. |
|
| |
How about tranquilizer-dart guns for all? |
|
| |
How about calling them "Knights"? Weren't knights
supposed to be respectable figures that were valiant,
brave heroes who rode around to keep the peace? I
know they were probably just thugs that served as
the muscle for the kings they served, but the idea is
romantic enough. Resurrect it here in the states to
be something you earn, something that anybody can
do as long as they're made of the right stuff and put
in the effort. Not a
badge you get awarded for pleasing the rulers, a self
earned title that actually means something. |
|
| |
I think for this to work it would have to have carry
much more respect that being a paid police officer
and be much, much, much harder to achieve. |
|
| |
Increasing gun ownership is a disturbing,
dangerous and crude solution to the problem of
increasing safety. [-] because there would be more
new crimes due to these armed "police" than
existing crimes they would prevent, and this
would push criminals toward victimizing people
who are not in crowds. Please, suggest a creative
solution that does not involve more concealed
handguns. |
|
| |
Can we [mfd] all political discussion on the hb,
please? |
|
| |
//Can we [mfd] all political discussion on the hb,
please?// |
|
| |
Alternately, we could just not mfd everything that
displeases us. That works for me. There are many
categories in the "Politics" section of the HB. That's a
good thing. |
|
| |
More police would create more crime? Interesting
theory. |
|
| |
Ooh, this one's a tough-y.
<apologizes in advance while setting up soap-box> |
|
| |
I think this 'could' be a good idea if only because a deputizen would be able to obtain admissible evidence in ways law enforcement is not supposed to be able to like entrapment, reading of rights and needing a warrant.
I would say that for this to be possible though, any weapons they are allowed to carry automatically video and send data when drawn. |
|
| |
Once you disarm all of the good-guys, only the bad-guys are armed. Which would be fine if police were actually required to protect us when we need it, unfortunately they are only allowed to act during, or after, a crime has been committed. |
|
| |
I've yet to witness anyone attacked or have an attack on my person coincide with a policeman happening along. |
|
| |
See... the cops have to methodically search out criminals when, I'd say probably ninety percent of them are already known to more than half of the teens in any given town.
They aren't allowed to rat to the cops, that's the code, rats die.
If they don't want to be victims themselves they have to either be on board or pretend they don't know. |
|
| |
So what are they supposed to do about it if they're lucky enough to get all growed up?.. |
|
| |
Untie the publics hands and I think you'd see quite a spring cleanin. |
|
| |
Well, that's an argument against having undercover
cops, something that's been around forever. |
|
| |
I don't think I made the idea clear. This is simply an
idea to get more undercover cops. Except for
some logistical differences, these are simply highly
trained undercover police officers. In fact, more
highly trained than most. |
|
| |
As far as concealed carry holders turning a harmless
slaughter of innocent people into a shooting gallery,
well... I'll take my chances with the armed crowd and
the shooting gallery rather than the single armed
killer in an abattoir. |
|
| |
Here's one thing we know about a person with a gun
in a room full of un-armed people: game over. Having
some armed people in that room would change the
odds. Yes, you could argue that somebody might get
accidentally shot in a room full of people who were
already getting shot purposefully and methodically by
a mass murderer and yes, you might be right. The
alternative is the killer murdering people one by one
until he runs out of bullets or until the police arrive
at some point. |
|
| |
I'd rather be in the room with the armed people and
have at least some chance of getting out of there
alive. |
|
| |
But this is just about getting more undercover cops
on the job, not a commentary on conceal carry,
although I support that as long as it's contingent on a
thorough background check and psych profile. The
main benefit of conceal carry laws is the bad guys
don't know who's armed. Killers may be insane but
they're not stupid. They play the odds. Will they have
more success shooting up this gun free zone or should
they try to kill as many people as possible at that gun
show? The armed group environment is a less
tempting target, even of the weapons aren't readily
visible. Deterrence is the best defense. |
|
| |
That being said, there's an old joke where a
comedian at a comedy convention is told "We all
know the same jokes, so to save time we just say the
number." the new guy says "Ok, let me try it. Seventy
six." Dead silence from the crowd and he says "How
come nobody's laughing?" the old timer says "You told
it wrong." Point is, I think all these arguments should
be numbered to save time at this point. We've all
heard them, everything I just said has been said
before so assigning a number to these various pro and
con arguments would probably save time. |
|
| |
I think the highly trained volunteer under cover
police force is
new though. Newish anyway. |
|
| |
//3% of that group are armed, and think they are
highly trained police officers that receive regular
training in how to arrest or kill you if you pull a
gun.// |
|
| |
No. Very bad idea. <sighs> |
|
| |
Oh oh, I've been sighed at. |
|
| |
The awesome power of the dismissive sigh. Probably
the second most powerful audible release of gas a
man can make. |
|
| |
I kid because I love. ;) <--(manly hetero wink, pirate
like, not the other kind.) |
|
| |
... and the sequel where the newcomer says a number and the audience responds with side-splitting laughter. The old-timer explains: "They hadn't heard that one before". |
|
| |
Ok, I vote we go back to snowglobes, anything is better than this endless rehashing of gurn control. |
|
| |
/creepy wannabe cops/
bingo |
|
| |
I would hazard a guess that anyone who is instantly dismissive of this idea has yet to rub a socio/psychopath the wrong way. |
|
| |
Cops are no good to us when we're dead.
They do not protect us, so we must protect ourselves.
This can be helped or hindered by society. |
|
| |
I'm no creepy wannabe cop.
I'm a good-guy... and therefore a psychotic-asshole magnet no matter how small a profile I try to keep.
The police and society have yet to save me from even a single attack.
Terribly sorry, not their jobs you see. |
|
| |
"I" am the only one who has saved me in these situations. |
|
| |
If they can not prevent crimes, then they should untie our friggin hands.
Unless an entire society of creepy wannabe victims is the goal... |
|
| |
It seems to me that in the UK, they have a lot fewer
guns, and a lot fewer gun-related accidents and
mass-murders. I might be wrong about that, but... |
|
| |
Don't know how an idea to put more trained policemen on the street turned into a totally un-related gun control debate. |
|
| |
So, there's been two mass shootings at Fort Hood in the past 5 years. Fort Hood, you know, the army base full of trained professionals with weapons? |
|
| |
This should teach us that training and arming people is not the solution. |
|
| |
//Fort Hood, you know, the army base full of trained professionals with weapons?// |
|
| |
You're not actually saying that anybody in that room full of people getting shot had a weapon are you? |
|
| |
This is why I don't get into gun control / birth control / drug war / abortion debates, which, in case I forgot to mention it, isn't what this is. |
|
| |
// You're not actually saying that anybody in that room full of people getting shot had a weapon are you? // |
|
| |
I don't know. I fully admit ignorance on the subject. What I do find remarkable is that little seems to deter the bad guys. |
|
| |
// the bad guy's planning // |
|
| |
The problem is that the bad guys do plan and will plan for your 3%. The other problem is that they don't appear to be deterred by the wost possible outcome for themselves. |
|
| |
This is no debate. I don't think the idea is workable: Imagine a room with 100 people. One is the madman with a gun, three are your deputies, and 96 are regular folks. It is likely that a lot of people will get shot. |
|
| |
Nor is this idea new. [-] |
|
| |
That's like saying: "Imagine a house on fire surrounded by fire trucks and hoses spraying water at it and another house on fire in the middle of the desert with nobody around. It's likely that some houses are going to burn." |
|
| |
Let me get this straight. This idea proposes training a force of about 9m people (5x the size of the active US military) to an army-like proficiency in firearms. These 9m people are then supposed to walk around armed while remaining at a heightened state of awareness at all times. Oh and they aren't paid for their trouble. |
|
| |
At the very least, this should be [mfd] due to magic. |
|
| |
Let me get this straight: somebody proposed that a group of people would be trained to fight fires, then called on at any hour of the day or night, they'll leave their comfortable bed or leave their day job and risk their lives putting out the fires, going into the burning buildings to rescue people and then we don't pay them? |
|
| |
Yup, that's pretty much it. |
|
| |
Works for firemen, why not policemen? |
|
| |
Volunteer firefighters deserve heaps of praise. However, that analogy characterizes your idea as the neighborhood watch. |
|
| |
So, how about an all-volunteer NYFD? |
|
| |
//Don't know how an idea to put more trained policemen on the street turned into a totally un-related gun control debate.//
*jams hands in pockets, whistles innocently* |
|
| |
//So, how about an all-volunteer NYFD?// |
|
| |
This is an old debate trick known as the straw man argument. It's the equivalent of getting into the boxing ring and saying "Hey! Your shoe's untied!" |
|
| |
Another example might be that somebody suggests having a nice fire in the fireplace on a winter night, and arguing that this is a bad idea by saying "Why don't you just douse the house with gasoline and burn it down?" |
|
| |
Thing is, I'm almost positive this is already done to various degrees, I'm just too lazy to do the research. I read one Wikipedia page on it and lost interest. I'm just coming back since it's my post, I guess I gotta clean up after it. |
|
| |
But it might be a bad idea. I think some people would be uncomfortable with it. Then again, it might be a great idea. A way to make the streets safer without spending a lot of money. |
|
| |
Oh, I'm not debating; I'm asking questions and providing opinion. I have no desire to change your mind or sway the audience or whatever the point of a debate is. |
|
| |
The idea fails to address the question of: why should volunteers step in to replace professionals? It should be evident that the major fire departments are not being replaced by volunteer firefighters. In fact, historically, the opposite has been true. Who are these 9m volunteers and how are they better than the professionals we pay? The idea seems to answer this with...concealed guns. Well, good luck with that. I think it's a terrible idea, as I'm sure you've guessed by now. |
|
| |
Perhaps the "auxiliary police forces" that you refer to are "useless" because they're not paid well or because they're not trained well, which -- I hate to break it to you -- also costs money. |
|
| |
You have millions of magical volunteers at your
disposal. Why not pick the people who work in the
firearms industry and volunteer them to stop
working. That's free too. Aim higher! |
|
| |
//Who are these 9m volunteers// |
|
| |
Your number, your straw man argument. |
|
| |
//why should volunteers step in to replace professionals?// |
|
| |
Volunteers REPLACING police instead of augmenting their force. Your concept, your straw man argument. |
|
| |
//Who are these 9m volunteers and how are they better than the professionals we pay?// |
|
| |
As stated, they have the same training and stringent requirements, perhaps even more so. |
|
| |
//The idea seems to answer this with...concealed guns.// |
|
| |
Again, ignoring all the training discussed and creating the straw man argument that the idea is in fact just to hand guns out in a candy dish to anybody who happens along. |
|
| |
Might not be a great idea, but not for any of the reasons you're creating. |
|
| |
OK, well I read 3% and multiplied that by 300
million which is the population of the US. |
|
| |
You seem to suggest that these volunteers will be
comparable in training to the police but will do this
for free. Do you have any examples where
volunteers have replaced or effectively augmented
professionals in large numbers? And don't say
strawman; clarify how this idea would actually
function. It's easy to say let's all volunteer to do X,
but do these people actually exist? |
|
| |
Volunteer firefighters are not a reasonable
comparison. There are vast differences between
dousing a barn and shooting a madman at the drop
of a hat. Professionals are fully capable of the
former, but struggle with the latter. |
|
| |
I have no agenda on this topic of debate. I just
think this idea is unworkable and/or doesn't actually
solve the problem. |
|
| |
//And don't say strawman// |
|
| |
Strawman strawman strawman. |
|
| |
//clarify how this idea would actually function.// |
|
| |
Also noted that it might not work. |
|
| |
The argument is getting repetitive and boring. I'll let you have the lasts word because I'm getting called away here. |
|
| |
The floor is yours. Gotta go. Knock 'em dead. |
|
| |
Please watch the ABC News link. The semi-trained
concealed weapon carrier frankly had no chance in
the mass chaos created when the mock gunman
entered. |
|
| |
Mental health screenings are difficult enough to
get reliable information on in the country as it is. |
|
| |
And the Unabomber had a very high IQ. |
|
| |
Frankly this idea is terrible. |
|
| |
//I've yet to witness anyone attacked or have an attack on my person coincide with a policeman happening along. |
|
| |
I think Rodney King might have something to say on this matter. |
|
| |
Hmm, howabout some way to quantify this numerically? |
|
| |
If we posit a shortish war against the state, say 100,000 deaths, then compare that to number of deaths deliberate or accidental from firearms.. |
|
| |
When the numbers coincide then think again about the legislation again? |
|
| |
//Please watch the ABC News link. The semi trained
concealed weapon carrier frankly had no chance in
the mass chaos created when the mock gunman
entered. Mental health screenings are difficult
enough to get reliable information on in the country
as it is. And the Unabomber had a very high IQ.
Frankly this idea is terrible.// |
|
| |
Not sure what that ridiculous ABC piece has to do
with this idea. |
|
| |
So yes or no: highly trained, fully qualified police
officers (this idea) have no chance of stopping a
rampaging gunman and we're better off NOT having
highly trained, fully qualified armed police officers
around if a rampaging gunman starts shooting people. |
|
| |
If yes, (in keeping with what you've said so far) then
please explain why you don't believe highly trained,
fully qualified police officers are useful at all in a
mass shooting situation. |
|
| |
//why you don't believe highly trained, fully qualified police officers are useful at all in a mass shooting situation. |
|
| |
Problem is, sometimes the Police are the ones doing the mass shooting... |
|
| |
"September 4, 2005: A deadly police shooting occurred on the Danziger Bridge in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.. seventeen-year-old James Brissette and forty-year-old Ronald Madison were killed in the gunfire, and four other civilians were wounded. All victims were unarmed. Madison, a mentally disabled man, was shot in the back..." |
|
| |
and for the lesser death count |
|
| |
"2013-01-14 Swilling, Wesley (31) South Carolina (Greenville) Swilling was in the Law Enforcement Center parking lot and approached an officer and deputy in a “threatening manner” with what appeared to be a weapon. Fearing for their safety, they both shot at Swilling, hitting him at least once. Swilling fell down, but continued to approach them, so they took cover behind a vehicle and both fired again, hitting him at least once more. Swilling was pronounced dead at the scene.[31] After further investigation, it was revealed that Swilling was "armed" with a hot glue gun." |
|
| |
So we're clear. The solution to mass shootings is to not get
the police involved. Ok. |
|
| |
Got really bored, and by some extremely naff rules of thumb, worked out that that about the US is slightly ahead, as the putative 100,000 deaths from the conflict with tyrannical President X, and the number of people shot to death will be equal about 2050 give to take. |
|
| |
I'll try and get that date properly worked out on Sunday... |
|
| |
//Swilling was "armed" with a hot glue gun."// |
|
| |
Hey, don't kid yourself. Those can be just as dangerous as a soldering iron in the right hands. |
|
| |
//So we're clear. The solution to mass shootings is to not get the police involved. Ok.// |
|
| |
That isn't what the idea says. The idea is a volunteer fire dept of navy seal-types numbering in the thousands? Millions? (You're sketchy on the number, btw.) |
|
| |
Excellent mental health. Quick reflexes. Crack shot. Willing to undergo strict training regime. Willing to work without pay because you already have a six-figure income. |
|
| |
We could probably find a thousand or so people (out of 300m) who meet your criteria. That is not a statistically significant number to have any effect on violent crime in general, let alone mass shootings. |
|
| |
Would it be nice to be standing next to this person when a mass shooting erupts? Yes, but that doesn't make the idea feasible. |
|
| |
" Would it be nice to be standing next to this person when a mass shooting erupts? Yes, but " |
|
| |
No. I'm just going to say no, it would not be nice. They'd either be successfully engaging the bad guy in an exchange of gunfire, or they'd be displaying their weapon and attempting to tell people what to do. I would choose not to be in close proximity if I had a choice :-) |
|
| |
//Would it be nice to be standing next to this person when a mass shooting erupts? Yes, but that doesn't make the idea feasible.// |
|
| |
I see you've abandoned the notion that trained, armed police officers would have no effect on mass shooting situations and the last remaining argument it that it's a bad idea simply because you wouldn't be able to get enough people into the program, is that correct? |
|
| |
//I see you've abandoned the notion that// |
|
| |
That's a very argumentative stance for someone who's not arguing. |
|
| |
Almost any idea can seem possible and good when you have a corps of magical volunteers. *If* you had these magical people, this idea might be good. But you don't have these people, because you're neglecting elemental facts about economy and human behavior. |
|
| |
The idea is terrible, which you've half admitted, and poorly researched, which you've fully admitted. |
|
| |
Yup, it's a terrible idea. Too bad they already do it. (see link) |
|
| |
They're uniformed, so that's the only difference. Better get on the honker to LAPD and tell them you're better at administering law enforcement than they are. I'm sure they'll cancel the program immediately. |
|
| |
Just curious, what's your solution? |
|
| |
//They're uniformed, so that's the only difference.// |
|
| |
Um...no? Other differences include: |
|
| |
"They wouldn't hand out traffic tickets, deal with domestic disturbances, break up bar fights, they'd just be there in case a dangerous criminal was threatening to hurt innocent civilians." |
|
| |
Presumably, the LAPD would want to offload the more mundane stuff to the reserves. Just a guess, but I don't know for sure. |
|
| |
Oh, and perhaps another small, tiny difference: |
|
| |
"and their weapons are concealed." |
|
| |
Other than that, yes, perhaps volunteer uniformed cops who carry sidearms and patrol their neighborhoods are exactly identical to non-uniformed anti-mass-shooting specialists who carry concealed weapons. |
|
| |
//Just curious, what's your solution?// |
|
| |
Fewer guns, stricter access, and better training. A gradual and deliberate de-glamorization of gun culture. More money for social and mental health. Easy and cheap? No. But far past due. |
|
| |
Compare the US to any other Western democracy and it's pretty obvious that reducing access to guns reduces gun crime. Are other countries perfect? No. But they're far ahead of the US in this respect. The US has a disproportionally high amount of gun crime. You can still keep some of the guns, just have better control of access and better/more training. Empathy tests, show people videos of shootings and monitor physiological responses. |
|
| |
I don't know why I'm so hell bent on annotating this idea. It's nothing personal. I view guns as an anti-social solution to social problems, much like security walls and surveillance cameras, etc. Are they necessary sometimes? Sure. But far less often than we seem use them. |
|
| |
Well my friend, as with many slug fests on this site, after the combatants go back to their corners they find that they're not so far apart on the issues. |
|
| |
I do think access to guns should be contingent on not being out of one's mind for starters. There are probably things we can all agree on to move things in the right direction. |
|
| |
Good fight. We'll call it a draw. (fistbump) |
|
| |
Cheers. Agreed. I do concede that our little discussion caused me to think/re-think things I wouldn't normally have, so I consider it time well spent. |
|
| |
Hey, nothing wrong with a little healthy debate. |
|
| |
// I do think access to guns should be contingent on not being out of one's mind for starters. There are probably things we can all agree on to move things in the right direction. // |
|
| |
How long does a person, who walks into a shrink's office or gets a prescription for whatever from a GP, give up their right to bear arms ? Does that include non-prescription mood-modifiers like alcohol and weed ? Does that include acquaintances ? |
|
| |
You answer the door to a bunch of JW's on Saturday morning wearing a pair of pink bunny slippers and a smile; they report it to the cops and the cops come and take your toys away, right ? |
|
| |
Raise your voice to a telemarketer ? Express a bit of pissedoffishness at the utility company for misbilling you and refusing to do anything about it ? |
|
| |
Stand up for your rights ? |
|
| |
Ordinarily I don't add a comment solely on voting, but I've decided it's important to
make an exception in this case.
I'm voting for this; it seems like a good idea. |
|
| |
I suggest that armed deputized civilians be given: |
|
| |
1) A heavily authenticated and secure ID card which they must carry when they are
armed, to show if challenged.
2) A series of certificates and ceremonies recognising number of years of service
3) Payments towards expenses. (Or payments in kind - eg discounted gun purchase).
Not necessarily the full amount, but a contribution towards costs incurred. |
|
| |
I voted for as well. I would suggest though that if the gun comes out of its holster that a camera starts filming. |
|
| |
Can I point out that in some counties on this fine earth
even the police don't routinely carry firearms and the
notion that lethal force is not only routine but necessary to
maintain peace and justice is not a universally accepted
idea? It seems to me that general crime has dropped
sharply for decades and the notion that we need a massive
police force that is incapable of investigation or even
coordinated response is a fatuous, and paranoid, idea. |
|
| |
Wow, it can't get much cooler than this...;-) |
|
| |
Not only was I a first responder, I came back again. |
|
| |
(No. I'm just going to say no, it would not be nice. They'd either be successfully engaging the bad guy in an exchange of gunfire, or they'd be displaying their weapon and attempting to tell people what to do. I would choose not to be in close proximity if I had a choice :-)
— normzone, May 27 2014
[edit, delete] |
|
| |
And I'm passing through again...damn alternate universes...Well, it's still the same story. |
|
| |
" Ordinarily I don't add a comment solely on voting, but I've decided it's important to make an exception in this case.
I'm voting for this; it seems like a good idea. |
|
| |
I suggest that armed deputized civilians be given: |
|
| |
1) A heavily authenticated and secure ID card which they must carry when they are armed, to show if challenged.
2) A series of certificates and ceremonies recognising number of years of service
3) Payments towards expenses. (Or payments in kind - eg discounted gun purchase). Not necessarily the full amount, but a contribution towards costs incurred.
— Loris, Dec 06 2015 |
|
| |
I seem to recall posting something similar, then removing it because it was old hat. |
|
| |
Granted I'd be willing to jump through hoops and carry insurance, it's still old news. |
|
| |
I don't really get what the hype is. In the back country you expect that the other guy on his snowmobile or quad or in his truck has at least a rifle, a knife an axe and probably a chain-saw, and he expects that you've got those things too. It's all good.
It's only in established cities that these things are a problem. |
|
| |
Of course altercations will happen outside of cities... but then the guy doing the shooting almost always has some ties to the victim in those cases, unless he/she is deranged in which case choice of weapon really doesn't matter much to the victim. |
|
| |
The problem is with society itself, not with armed citizens.
Disarming a populace is the first step towards a police state, not its antithesis... and that will not happen here in Canada. |
|
| |
We, and by we I mean the other eighty percent of gun owners in Canada who told our government to pound salt up their asses when they instituted a gun-registry money-grab against our wishes, will disassemble and pack in grease the arms given to us by our grandfathers before complying. |
|
| |
It is what it is.
Fix the problems leading up to homicidal assholes attacking innocents, (with whatever weapon you can name), spend our money properly, and do the jobs us citizens pay for. Period. |
|
| |
I'm just curious about how many people who boned
this idea would support canceling somewhat similar
programs that have been in place for decades. |
|
| |
//It's only in established cities that these things are a problem.
[...]
The problem is with society itself, not with armed citizens.
Disarming a populace is the first step towards a police state, not its antithesis... and that will not happen here in Canada.
[...]
Fix the problems leading up to homicidal assholes attacking innocents, (with whatever weapon you can name), spend our money properly, and do the jobs us citizens pay for. Period.// |
|
| |
I think something which is implicit in this is that it's _for_ cities - particularly those with a lot of shootings. From what I've heard, Canada doesn't have a problem, so this would be unneccesary. |
|
| |
//Can I point out that in some counties on this fine earth even the police don't routinely carry firearms and the notion that lethal force is not only routine but necessary to maintain peace and justice is not a universally accepted idea? // |
|
| |
I live in one of those places. Although it isn't explicitly stated, I think we must assume that this idea is written for the USA.
Also, the idea doesn't say anything about taking other people's guns away. While it /might/ work as part of a gradual program tightening up on gun ownership, it doesn't say anything about that here. I think it is a mistake to silently vote against an idea for something it doesn't say. |
|
| |
A lot of police departments are cutting back on
training for their current officers to save money. If
police departments can't afford to train their current
officers, where are they going to come up with the
money to train hundreds of unofficial officers? |
|
| |
can we have amateur criminals as well ? |
|
| |
//From what I've heard, Canada doesn't have a problem, so this would be unnecessary.// |
|
| |
Oh, we've got our share of mass-shootings, loonies and criminals here too. There was a gang rival drive-by shooting downtown here in 2011, and some psycho cut off someone else's head on a greyhound bus not too long ago.
Whether we like it or not Canada's fate is entwined with that of our big bad bully neighbour to the south, and the decisions made there affect us as well as the rest of the planet. |
|
| |
We have *loads* of those. No pennies anymore, though. |
|
| |
heh, 'course not. Pennies were worth the metal they were stamped from.
Have you seen the proposed Five dollar coin yet? [link]
We're going to end up calling it a friggin Moonie I can just feel it. |
|
| |
//A lot of police departments are cutting back on
training for their current officers to save money. If
police departments can't afford to train their current
officers, where are they going to come up with the
money to train hundreds of unofficial officers?// |
|
| |
The volunteers would pay for it themselves. |
|
| |
//the volunters would pay for it, themselves// that could work to mitigate the sense of false entitlement that might crop up otherwise. |
|
| |
It would kind of be another layer to weed out the
losers too. You'd have to be pretty financially stable
to do this. I'm not sure that there would be any
"creepy loners" who would be able to support
themselves, pay for their training and upkeep and
dedicate the time to ongoing maintenance of the
necessary training. This hurdle alone would require
the person be pretty exceptional. |
|
| |
Want to add another requirement? They need to be
former military with all their service records being
combed over before being licensed. Interviews with
former service members they served with, reviews
with their superiors, etc. |
|
| |
1- Former military combat experience
2- Pass stringent psychological profile test including
past military records including interviews with former
commanders and fellow combat personnel
3- The exact same training police take for active
shooter or violent assault situations. NO TRAINING
FOR HIGH SPEED CHASES, HANDING OUT SPEEDING
TICKETS OR ARRESTING DRUNK HUSBANDS IN
DOMESTIC ABUSE SITUATIONS!
4- Regular performance and psych reviews
5- Must be financially together enough to be able to
pay for
all their training, profiling, reviews and upkeep.
6- Must be together enough to be able to do
whatever it is they do for a living and be able to
put the time into the upkeep of this sideline. |
|
| |
As the arguments for this concept get stronger, I'm
seeing that the critizisms of the idea are getting
weaker. They've sort of de-evolved into short quips
that don't bear up under scrutiny. "If you can shoot a
bunch of unarmed soldiers it shows that guns are
useless against guns." that sort of thing. |
|
| |
I think at some point people just fall in love with
their first reaction then put all their energy into
validating it. If the logic isn't there it just causes
anger and resentment, not a change of mind. |
|
| |
I've said it before, I'll say it again. People don't
change their mind. They pick a group to associate
with, read the bylaws and repeat the dogma. It's
what
we do. |
|
| |
I'd like to think I'm not guilty of it but I probably am. |
|
| |
I think you'll struggle to hit your target of 3% of population if you require people to pay for the entire training programme, their own costs and also restrict entry to a small fraction of the population. |
|
| |
I know not a lot of people would be able to do this,
but the advantage of stealth would be in play here. |
|
| |
Yes, there may not be anybody in that movie theater
who's actually been trained to fight back in an active
shooter situation, but then again, they're might be
one. Or two. Maybe five or six. |
|
| |
Then you post uniform police officers at schools. You
know where you get those cops? Take the guys hiding
behind a billboard generating speeding ticket
revenue and put them in front of the god damned
school protecting our children. |
|
| |
Maybe that's a separate idea, the specifically taking
traffic enforcement and moving it to schools. Good
luck attacking that idea. |
|
| |
It can't be about money, (some of the shadiest pieces-of-crap I've met were wealthy).
It can't be about being ex-military, (flat-feet disqualification?... really?).
It can't be about psych-profiles, (they change, what? daily?.. and according to who's criteria?)
It can't be any stipulation other than that you, as a person, haven't fucked up the right to defend yourself and others... and even then people 'do' change and need to be revaluated, so ex-cons may be able to regain this right... and make no mistake, it is a 'right' to defend yourself and others against the shit you may happen to find yourself in, with whatever you happen to have at your disposal, no matter what any separate person or authority might have to say in the matter. |
|
| |
They have not the right to take away self defense. |
|
| |
//They have not the right to take away self
defense.// |
|
| |
I may or may not disagree with some of the first
comments
but I absolutely agree with that. |
|
| |
I'm not finding anything but very good results from
conceal carry states where you simply need to not
have a criminal record. |
|
| |
I'm not even sure liberals are arguing against that are
they? I think it's mostly stuff like banning scary
looking guns that are used in 1.4% of crimes, the so
called "assault weapons". Pretty much all murders are
from handguns, enough so that for practical purposes
we can say that ALL gun murders are from handguns.
Then you look at which groups are doing the murders
and it gets uncomfortable quick. |
|
| |
But are there arguments against background verified
conceal carry? I'm not seeing them, only assault
weapons ban proposals. |
|
| |
My tin foil hat theory is that the left doesn't really
want to ban guns because they would lose a cause
that rallies people to them, which is what they're all
about. All the guns go away, so do all the supportive
voters who want gun bans someday, like not next
week, but definitely in several months, maybe a few
years. |
|
| |
For that reason alone, guns aren't going anywhere. (Is my
tin foil hat on straight?) |
|
| |
When you actually get down to it about five percent of US
adults already have concealed carry. I estimate half of
those are competent enough to actually shoot someone
accurately. A whopping 2.5%. In a crowded theater there is
the statistical likelihood that at least two people might be
able to return fire. So in theory you already have a
gendarme in most crowded places, and the only difference
between the status quo and your idea is that a lot of
people take some additional training and then get a wallet
badge which basically says "I'm not a cop, but if I just shot
you I think I did it for the right reasons." ? |
|
| |
I don't know about the rest of the country, but I actually
looked up the number of conceal carry permits granted in
the county I live in here in Silicon Valley and it's under
200. I'm guessing those are going to the billionaires in the
area. |
|
| |
I checked out the county where we had those terrorists
kill all those people and there's 3,264 granted permits
out of a population of a little over two million so about
.16% of the population there. |
|
| |
//get a wallet badge which basically says "I'm not a cop,
but if I just shot you I think I did it for the right reasons."
?// |
|
| |
Let's let me handle the witty repartee shall we? You're in
over your head. |
|
| |
//Would this additional training be to recognise a life
threatening situation ? Secondly why aren't cops
themselves going on that course ?// |
|
| |
The training would be specifically to deal with crazy
shooter or assault situations the same that cops have and
they probably wouldn't need a badge because we'd know
they were the good guy since they're the one shooting AT
the bad guy rather than unarmed civilians. |
|
| |
But don't know how much training you'd need to
recognize that a guy walking into a restaurant and
shooting people was a life threatening situation. |
|
| |
Don't kid yourself. A plastic fork in the right hands isn't
something to turn your back on. |
|
| |
hmm... you could give all customer service personnel firearms. That would be interesting. |
|
| |