Author Topic: $500 million gun violence package  (Read 24608 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #100 on: January 21, 2013, 03:26:53 PM »
With regard to guns and Mexico, it's interesting that while Mexico with its tight laws on guns is awash with violence which they blame on the US supply of firearms.  Our neighbors to the north, on the other hand, don't typically have gun violence, beheadings and wholesale slaughter despite their shared border with the US.  Maybe it's not the guns causing the problem.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4508
  • Age: 25
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #101 on: January 21, 2013, 06:35:20 PM »
Which is why Berlin and Tokyo have horrible gun violence problems like East Cleveland.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #102 on: January 21, 2013, 09:42:44 PM »
Which is why Berlin and Tokyo have horrible gun violence problems like East Cleveland.

Once more, why the !$@ are you so hung up on gun violence?  You're saying that it's ok to kill people with trucks & knives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre or nerve gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

PS: You come across interesting things poking around the internet.  For instance, this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

Quote
...the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns...
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 09:49:28 PM by Jamesqf »

Hamster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #103 on: January 21, 2013, 11:59:08 PM »
Regardless of your opinion of the way that Australia democratically enacted gun control legislation, exactly how many mass shootings have there been in Australia since they did so?

Exactly zero?

Nope, not exactly zero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting 
2 dead and 5 injured by a guy with a bunch of handguns. That's your 'mass' shooting? And unarmed citizens were able to tackle him and take him down when he tried to switch weapons... That seems like a pretty damn good argument that banning 'assault' rifles and high capacity magazines makes it harder to carry out a mass shooting.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6435
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #104 on: January 22, 2013, 09:25:21 AM »
Though not commonly cited in the American gun control debate because its not an option that's really on the table, Australia's solution to gun violence was popular, broad, severe, and very effective.  They used to have regular mass shootings like the US, they basically banned firearms, and they've gone 15 years without any significant gun violence.

Someone will undoubtedly chime in to say that even these draconian firearm restrictions won't stop all gun crime, and they'll be right.  And air bags haven't eliminated traffic fatalities.  But they do make a big difference, and delaying their mandatory installation in new cars cost us thousands of lives that could have been saved had we acted sooner.  I see the current gun control debate in the same way; the longer we delay putting in place some kind of regulations, at least for the mentally ill or criminally convicted, the more people who could have been saved will die.

I know you don't like the idea of the government looking over your shoulder, but resisting regulation of weapons that are commonly used to kill people is just advocating on behalf of killers.

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #105 on: January 22, 2013, 10:44:56 AM »
...resisting regulation of weapons that are commonly used to kill people is just advocating on behalf of killers.

This is rich coming from the "Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome" guy...
Badassity is a journey, not a guided tour.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #106 on: January 22, 2013, 11:24:34 AM »
Australia's solution to gun violence was popular, broad, severe, and very effective.  They used to have regular mass shootings like the US, they basically banned firearms, and they've gone 15 years without any significant gun violence.

Sure, because the people who would once have used guns now use e.g. containers of gasoline.  I fail to see how this is an improvement.

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #107 on: January 22, 2013, 02:24:24 PM »
So, second amendment. Is it really relevant anymore? Yes, it's law. Got it, and yes, you're very fond of your constitution regardless of 200 years of social and technological change. That's fine, I understand the sentiment:  don't fix what isn't broken.
BUT.
When it was written, American citizens actually had better muskets, on the whole, than British regulars. There was an equivalence in arms between the people and the state which really doesn't exist today.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State. The state can track all unencrypted communications-- well, e-mail, phone and SMS, anyway-- and so probably already knows you to be armed and freedom-loving. They have total air superiority, total superiority in armour, and, odds are, the tacit support (or at least lack of opposition) of most of the populace (because how else did the tyrants get into power?).
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?

unitsinc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #108 on: January 22, 2013, 02:40:42 PM »
So, second amendment. Is it really relevant anymore? Yes, it's law. Got it, and yes, you're very fond of your constitution regardless of 200 years of social and technological change. That's fine, I understand the sentiment:  don't fix what isn't broken.
BUT.
When it was written, American citizens actually had better muskets, on the whole, than British regulars. There was an equivalence in arms between the people and the state which really doesn't exist today.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State. The state can track all unencrypted communications-- well, e-mail, phone and SMS, anyway-- and so probably already knows you to be armed and freedom-loving. They have total air superiority, total superiority in armour, and, odds are, the tacit support (or at least lack of opposition) of most of the populace (because how else did the tyrants get into power?).
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?

While I'm still pretty pro second, I've always pictured this scenario too when I think of an armed revolution.
I'm your huckleberry.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2013, 03:15:05 PM »
So, second amendment. Is it really relevant anymore? Yes, it's law. Got it, and yes, you're very fond of your constitution regardless of 200 years of social and technological change. That's fine, I understand the sentiment:  don't fix what isn't broken.
BUT.
When it was written, American citizens actually had better muskets, on the whole, than British regulars. There was an equivalence in arms between the people and the state which really doesn't exist today.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State. The state can track all unencrypted communications-- well, e-mail, phone and SMS, anyway-- and so probably already knows you to be armed and freedom-loving. They have total air superiority, total superiority in armour, and, odds are, the tacit support (or at least lack of opposition) of most of the populace (because how else did the tyrants get into power?).
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?

I think we could debate better armed colonists.  They colonists did however, poseess better tactics and local knowledge as well as the help of the French which enabled them to defeat the British.

More recently, several super powers (including the US) have had significant issues quelling insurgents (ie Iraq, Afganistan, and Vietnam).

I support the 2nd amendment and believe it to be an individual right.  That being said, I don't think you can discount an armed populace given the recent experience our armed forces have faced.

All that being said, we had a civil war in the US with hundreds of thousands of deaths.  I don't know any gun owners who are clamoring for a repeat.  If they are, they are nuts.

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2013, 03:21:40 PM »
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?

While I'm still pretty pro second, I've always pictured this scenario too when I think of an armed revolution.

This is probably one of the best questions asked as it relates to changing times and the 2nd amendments, which among other things was enacted to allow defense against a tyranical government. 

Today we have well trained and armed police and military forces that protect against foreign and domestic threats at all levels; however, they are part of the government and their training and standard operating protocol is based on hierarchical structure that emphasizes following orders and de-emphasizes independent thought.  So on this basis these forces could quickly and easily be used to repress a population - we do allow for martial law don't we and that could be abused - and those that initially fight will likely lose - but in this case it still supports that argument for arms as even if they are grossly inferior they are better than nothing.   

But then the reality will set in that the truth will get out and there will be a rebellious contingent including those in the police and military and the weapons from those factions will be transferred to the rebellious as a result and other nations will send weapons to support the rebellion (the US does it all the time) so then maybe arms are not necessary for the people.



James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #111 on: January 22, 2013, 03:58:19 PM »
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?

While I'm still pretty pro second, I've always pictured this scenario too when I think of an armed revolution.

This is probably one of the best questions asked as it relates to changing times and the 2nd amendments, which among other things was enacted to allow defense against a tyranical government. 

Today we have well trained and armed police and military forces that protect against foreign and domestic threats at all levels; however, they are part of the government and their training and standard operating protocol is based on hierarchical structure that emphasizes following orders and de-emphasizes independent thought.  So on this basis these forces could quickly and easily be used to repress a population - we do allow for martial law don't we and that could be abused - and those that initially fight will likely lose - but in this case it still supports that argument for arms as even if they are grossly inferior they are better than nothing.   

But then the reality will set in that the truth will get out and there will be a rebellious contingent including those in the police and military and the weapons from those factions will be transferred to the rebellious as a result and other nations will send weapons to support the rebellion (the US does it all the time) so then maybe arms are not necessary for the people.

Good points.  I think arms of a significant sort would be required to create the spark of resistance to tyranny, which is what the second amendment continues to provide.  Without an armed populace it might never get to the point of a "rebellious contingent".

Having said that, I don't think anyone supposes that an armed populace is going to simply throw off a tyrannical government and start fresh.  We don't know how tyranny might form, how resistance would develop, what use guns would be, and what path (successful or not) the fight for freedom could take.  But I honestly think it's the very nature of our government in that it allows that sort of thought and has enshrined that idea in the constitution that limits the chances of it coming about.  Hopefully that will continue, I have no reason to think that it won't.
Badassity is a journey, not a guided tour.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6435
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #112 on: January 23, 2013, 05:06:54 PM »
...resisting regulation of weapons that are commonly used to kill people is just advocating on behalf of killers.

This is rich coming from the "Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome" guy...

Do as I say, not as I do?  Is that a valid defense for hypocrisy?  I'm never really sure, and I have kids so it comes up once in a while.

Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State...
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?

This situation is even worse than you've stated.  I doubt there is a single civilian force in the country that could fend off 8 marines in an armored vehicle, and the military has thousands of those things.  Your AR-15s might as well be pop-guns.  If you put up a really good fight, they'll shell you with artillery, level your building with a precision guided missile, or (worst case scenario) turn your entire state into a radioactive wasteland for the next ten thousand years.   Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI.

Read up on Ohio-class submarines and then get back to me on how you're going to take on the United States.  We have a largish fleet of these subs in constant stealth deployment, and each one carries 24 Trident IIs, potentially each carrying 8 nuclear warheads.  Doing the math on that, each individual submarine is capable of delivering 192 mushroom clouds. 

The thought that your personal firearm collection, however illicit and awesome it may be, is going to defend your liberty against that kind of technological superiority is kind of funny, really.  And the same logic applies all the way down the list, from satellites to handguns.  You cannot fight the military and win, regardless of your Constitutionally protected right to try.

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #113 on: January 23, 2013, 05:28:07 PM »
Do as I say, not as I do?  Is that a valid defense for hypocrisy?  I'm never really sure, and I have kids so it comes up once in a while.


The older my kids get the more hypocrisy they catch me at.
Badassity is a journey, not a guided tour.

5oclockshadow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #114 on: January 23, 2013, 05:43:47 PM »
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."

- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar

unitsinc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #115 on: January 23, 2013, 06:12:19 PM »
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."

- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar

I think he was referring to the US.

When Syria and company get the military that the US has, then maybe it would be an accurate comparison.
I'm your huckleberry.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #116 on: January 23, 2013, 06:36:18 PM »
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."

- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar

I think he was referring to the US.

When Syria and company get the military that the US has, then maybe it would be an accurate comparison.

Civilians w/simple arms have managed to cause our military some issues in Afganistan and Iraq.  Obviously we have killed a lot more of them than they have killed of us, but I wouldn't say they have been completely quelled. 

Also, given the fact we haven't used a nuclear weapons since 1945 (other than testing) I seriously doubt our govt would attack US soil with one.

With regard to a large scale US uprising referenced above, no sane person hopes for any of the above to happen.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #117 on: January 23, 2013, 08:32:30 PM »
This situation is even worse than you've stated.  I doubt there is a single civilian force in the country that could fend off 8 marines in an armored vehicle, and the military has thousands of those things.

The question, though, is whether, once things start, those Marines are going to be fighting on the government's side, refuse to take up arms against their fellow Americans, or join the revolution?  Best case, it could come down to FBI/DEA/BATF and similar against the rest of us.

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #118 on: January 24, 2013, 01:57:38 PM »
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."

- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar

In Lebanon, Western air strikes leveled the playing field; they took out most or Mummar's forces.
In Egypt, they didn't have to fight the army; the army abandoned the Hosini.
In Syria, the army split, and they're mired in civil war; Bashar remains, tenuously, in power.

What about Bahrain? There the army (and the more powerful armies of the neighbouring Saudis) has stayed unanimously behind the throne, and the revolution was pretty much drowned in its own blood.

The premise that civilians cannot fight the state by themselves seems hold in these examples. It looks to me like you need military intervention, from outside or inside of the state to have any hope of making a dent.  And note that none of these Arab regimes were anything nearly as well armed and organized as the US military.

Now, the US military is very unlikely to want to go in for the wholesale slaughter of civilians on US soil. Again, though, tyranny doesn't happen in a vacuum. Italy, Germany, Hungary all elected their fascist regimes. If it happens in America, it will because your neighbors want it to. In which case it's not a wholesale slaughter of American civilians but a few "terrorists"/"patriots" being quietly (or not so quietly) disappeared. I do not see how your guns help you, then.
I can't see how it would be FBI/DEA/BATF against "the rest of you" -- the FBI is also made up of Americans same as the Marines. If it comes to armed revolt, why are they more likely to stand with the regime than the oath-sworn military officers?  Maybe they are, but I don't see it. Our military would certainly side against its people; they have a very "them and us" mentality which I suspect the powers that be deliberately cultivate. Perhaps America is different. Regardless, don't police forces in your country now also find themselves armed and armoured on the federal dollar? I keep hearing in the news that Sheriff's offices can pick up
In any case, you're talking about being part of a widescale revolution, however. For that to occur, the United States would have to (with the tacit approval of its populace) fall into tyrrany, and THEN the tyrants would have to bungle the job and lose that approval to the point of triggering a general revolt. That is a process that can take decades. (In my reading of history, the masses are usually less concerned about freedom than having full stomachs. The French, Russian, and Arab Spring revolutions were fundamentally bread riots at heart.)
Probably, in the meantime, they're going to outlaw your guns, sift cyberspace, and come a knockin'.
 

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #119 on: January 24, 2013, 01:59:15 PM »
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #120 on: January 24, 2013, 04:50:51 PM »
I can't see how it would be FBI/DEA/BATF against "the rest of you" -- the FBI is also made up of Americans same as the Marines. If it comes to armed revolt, why are they more likely to stand with the regime than the oath-sworn military officers?

Because cops are cops.  They are not "of the people", they are a self-proclaimed elite, self-selected to make war against civilians, scumbags, and other enemies of the regime (depending on country), and so they are automatically on the side of the government which allows/encourages them to do this. 

(Of course this is a generalization: there are individual cops who feel and act differently, but those are fairly rare.)

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #121 on: January 24, 2013, 05:51:54 PM »
I can't see how it would be FBI/DEA/BATF against "the rest of you" -- the FBI is also made up of Americans same as the Marines. If it comes to armed revolt, why are they more likely to stand with the regime than the oath-sworn military officers?

Because cops are cops.  They are not "of the people", they are a self-proclaimed elite, self-selected to make war against civilians, scumbags, and other enemies of the regime (depending on country), and so they are automatically on the side of the government which allows/encourages them to do this. 

(Of course this is a generalization: there are individual cops who feel and act differently, but those are fairly rare.)
Ah, well, yes. This is true, up to a point. What interests me is that you think your military does not share this attitude. Is this from experience or just due to the general reverence most Americans feel towards those in uniform?
I only ask because all of the military personnel I have encountered in the Canadian Forces do have an attitude problem. I remember the bloodlust when a relative told the story of a fellow who was badly beaten for (when off duty, as a private citizen) protesting a _provincial_ government policy. In a different province. That the anglo military types mostly don't like. (Quebec, just in case you're wondering.) Or the fellow who thought he could get away scott free with beating civilians to a bloody pulp because he was too far from base to make having the MPs fetch him worthwhile (ergo no charges, in his mind).
Speeding limits and other 'nuisance' laws are waived for military personnel the same as cops ignore them for other cops, apparently.   
So I have no illusions that, if push came to shove, our "valiant heroes" would quite willingly put me to the wall if I gave them even the slightest excuse. I also suspect that the powers-that-be carefully maintain this attitude in their hired muscle in case of times of need.

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #122 on: January 24, 2013, 06:13:45 PM »
Coming from a family of cops, fbi, and military I will kindly disagree with the last two comments.

+1

Matt K

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Location: Canada
    • Krull Photography
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #123 on: January 25, 2013, 06:19:13 AM »
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.

You know the Mark Twain quote "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Well, I have found it to be very very true. Everytime I go some place, my negative stereo types have been washed away.

I think you may need to 'travel' down the street and hang out with some police officers or military memebers (active or retired). You'll find they are people who on the whole, in my direct personal experience, are good people.

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #124 on: January 25, 2013, 09:12:47 AM »
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.

You know the Mark Twain quote "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Well, I have found it to be very very true. Everytime I go some place, my negative stereo types have been washed away.

I think you may need to 'travel' down the street and hang out with some police officers or military memebers (active or retired). You'll find they are people who on the whole, in my direct personal experience, are good people.

My comments stem from unfortunately having hung out with active military personnel. On the whole, good people. Just with a god awful entitlement problem. Again, I am not in the US and the proportionately larger percent of service folk in your country could make a big difference; or it could be that I'm generalizing from a bad apple or 3.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1925
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #125 on: January 25, 2013, 11:05:15 AM »
My comments stem from unfortunately having hung out with active military personnel. On the whole, good people. Just with a god awful entitlement problem. Again, I am not in the US and the proportionately larger percent of service folk in your country could make a big difference; or it could be that I'm generalizing from a bad apple or 3.

On the whole I've found that the local police and all the military that I've met are very down to earth, friendly types.  Basically as long as you're not causing a ruckus they're cool.  Staties and feds seem to be much more power hungry/the people don't matter though.  Probably due to the more extensive indoctrination they go through.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #126 on: January 25, 2013, 11:22:06 AM »
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.

Sorry, but no.  I've been military, and have known cops.  They're entirely different.  Of course there are individual variations, but the typical cop is fundamentally a bully.  Yes, they'll usually leave you alone if you're not "causing a ruckus" or "acting otherwise than expected", but that just means that you're being a good serf and kowtowing to their authority.




tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #127 on: January 25, 2013, 12:53:38 PM »
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.

Sorry, but no.  I've been military, and have known cops.  They're entirely different.  Of course there are individual variations, but the typical cop is fundamentally a bully.  Yes, they'll usually leave you alone if you're not "causing a ruckus" or "acting otherwise than expected", but that just means that you're being a good serf and kowtowing to their authority.

So let me kid this right - if you commit crime or minimally are acting like a f'in stupid d-bag a-hole and causing a disruption to others and you taken to the mat for it then the cops are being the assholes. 

Sorry - you really need to rethink your perspective on this. 

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #128 on: January 25, 2013, 01:18:48 PM »
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.

Sorry, but no.  I've been military, and have known cops.  They're entirely different.  Of course there are individual variations, but the typical cop is fundamentally a bully.  Yes, they'll usually leave you alone if you're not "causing a ruckus" or "acting otherwise than expected", but that just means that you're being a good serf and kowtowing to their authority.

So let me kid this right - if you commit crime or minimally are acting like a f'in stupid d-bag a-hole and causing a disruption to others and you taken to the mat for it then the cops are being the assholes. 

Sorry - you really need to rethink your perspective on this.


I disagree with Jamesqf, I think he overstates the case, but he is certainly not saying what you are suggesting.  Maybe this isn't a rabbit trail worth being followed?
Badassity is a journey, not a guided tour.

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #129 on: January 25, 2013, 06:03:52 PM »
It's an ingroup/outgroup thing. If you have uniformed friends/relatives that automatically put you in the ingroup, you're not going to notice a problem, because they only act that way to the outgroup. It makes a huge difference. For instance, plunk me in 1940s Canada, and I'd notice little difference: as a white, heterosexual male, I would be in-group to those in power. I'd be treated very well, thanks.
Change _any_ of those three, and you're no longer in-group, and suddenly you're going to see society has an attitude problem.

It's not even their fault, really. It's just a problem of group dynamics. Cops are prone to viewing the world in black and white: either you're a victim or a bystander, or you're a perp. And spending all day everyday looking through that lens, is it any wonder that they might have trouble putting it down, off-duty?

Hell, to a lesser degree, Canadian engineering students have the same problem; some view it as elitist, self-selected jerks, but it's just an offshoot of the deliberate cultivation of a strong sense of pride and group-image.

When you create an in-group, you automatically create an out-group, and it can be difficult to manage that. It doesn't automatically mean everyone in uniform is going to be a jerk-- a soldier may define the in-group as "Americans" and be fine with civilians; a cop, the same. Or maybe not. The in-group for members of the Canadian Forces I have interacted with has been... other members of the Canadian Forces. Now, any military HAS to instill a sense of pride in its service people, and they are set apart from the civilian population. A certain sense of superiority is natural. (In the US, from what I've seen, the rest of the country goes along with this; the Canadian government wants us to go the same way, I think. Only if you don't follow the script of service-person superiority would you then notice anything wrong.) It can, however, lead to a dangerous disconnect between those in uniform and those without, if not well managed and/or the powers that be desire it.

Of course, my experience is almost exclusively with (again, Canadian, and YMMV in the US) officers, and I have been informed that officers are all assholes, and I need to have a beer with some real soldiers.