Uber Investor Suggests Addressing Police Killings With an App (usatoday.com) 311
An anonymous reader write: To address the problem of motorists killed by police officers, Shervin Pishevar, the Iranian-born VC who backed Uber, is suggesting an app that allows police officers to communicate with motorists during traffic stops without either party leaving their vehicles. USA Today reports that Pishevar "says he has slept very little in the past 48 hours as he seeks input from law enforcement, software engineers and designers, lawmakers and from community members," and he's now working with former New York City police commissioner. Engadget has criticized Pishevar's proposal, writing "Dear Silicon Valley, not everything can be solved with apps."
At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,", and also added a peace sign to their app, encouraging its users to "take a moment to think about what we can do to help," and changed the countdown for the arrival of a car into the amount of time left "to reflect on gun violence".
At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,", and also added a peace sign to their app, encouraging its users to "take a moment to think about what we can do to help," and changed the countdown for the arrival of a car into the amount of time left "to reflect on gun violence".
apple will want 30% of ticket / court fees (Score:5, Funny)
apple will want 30% of ticket / court fees.
Re:apple will want 30% of ticket / court fees (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. doesn't need rubbish like this either. They need to stop lowering the bar in efforts to be inclusive and demand more training, higher standards, and evaluate officers periodically.
They especially need to take officers who served in combat to the side and reprogram their life and death response because the majority of their encounters will not even get close to this. Of course as far as I know, the cops involved in most of the shootings were not combat vets but they could convey a message that others are incorrectly picking up.
Training and tactics can prevent most police shootings. Trust and professionalism go a long way too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The last time we had a shooting...
Who is this "we", kemo sabe?
Seriously, what country are you from/taking the perspective of?
Re: (Score:2)
The lead pipes are still in use though. The soldier joints had lead until more recently. It is the problem with the water in flint and other areas where the infrastructure is a mix of old and new.
However, i agree and don't think lead is the problem or sole problem. Take a look at Germany before Christianity took hold. It was a violent and brutal place and the response to killing someone was often a simple if he didn't want to die, he should have killed whoever tried to kill him. That was a cultural thing
Re: (Score:2)
They especially need to take officers who served in combat to the side and reprogram their life and death response
They need to start before they get to combat - the US military have a very crude engagement policy and it's caused them issues in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a possibility but different scenarios with law enforcement verses combat/war.
As shallow as it sounds, I'm willing to accept mistakes in a war setting but not so much in peace time policing. It is sad, I wish it didn't happen, does nothing to bring the innocent back to life or make them whole again, but it is the way I see things.
Re: (Score:2)
The bubble is strong with this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get over yourselves, techbros, this is not a software problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the logistics of organising a trip to a larger city for training would be ridiculous. Much better to just keep going around killing people.
Re: (Score:2)
"i concluded that the suspect was a threat because he turned off his police communications app."
Re: (Score:2)
While I support this philosophy when confronted with a new development, we're not talking about a new development here. Officers have been approaching motor vehicles in traffic stops for about a hundred years now. It's always had an element of danger for the cop, which of course also means it has an element of danger for the driver being stopped as well.
We have to start by asking, what elements in the problem we are addressing are new?
I think there are two. The first is that people in the car are much, mu
Re: (Score:3)
The first is that people in the car are much, much more likely to be armed than they were a generation ago.
Citation needed on this one. First off, the degree of firearms ownership and armed drivers will vary VASTLY by State, jurisdiction, and neighborhood. In some areas, being armed in a vehicle is basically impossible unless you're Very Special. In other areas, a cop might only encounter a few people who *aren't* armed.
Crime, as a whole, has been dropping since the early 90's although we're not entirely sure why (that, or just don't want to talk about why), so it might be okay to hypothesize that "illegally hav
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, now. Surely you recognize the fact that almost all of these unfortunate incidents are precipitated by human (mis) behavior, usually before the encounters begin at the point where the police are brought in. If people didn't behave badly, we wouldn't have any police shootings not because the cops would be all smiles and sunshine but because there wouldn't be a need for cops at all. That's not the world as it is or can be.
technical 'solution' for a social problem (Score:2)
How is that not a technical solution for a social problem? The social problems are numerous, including police violent trigger-happy officers, a society that seeks to right wrongs with violence and trump. Sure, some behaviour can be influenced with gadgets (violent behaviour vs bodycams), but this is like trying to cure psychiatric illness with reading a self-help booklet.
A good social solution imho would be to disarm 90% of police officers, only those exposed to real dangerous situations should be allowed b
Re: (Score:2)
On average, over the past decade, 144 law enforcement officers died each year.
As opposed to the over 900 people killed by them in 2015.
Mostly from a failure to apply enough force.
This is ironic, as too often the police in the US apply too much force.
You are an idiot if you make a move for something on your person with a gun pointed at you. Don't blame the cop; blame natural selection.
The gun shouldn't have been out, let alone pointed at him.
He was apparently asked for his ID; how exactly is he meant to provide it without moving?
At no point did he threaten the safety (let alone the life) of the policeman.
Then you get the lack of medical assistance, the police deleting the video from Facebook, the wife being physically restrained so that she couldn't help him her
real time audio communications (Score:2, Insightful)
How about a real time audio communications system is added to the cellphones? SOmething that can use the cellphone's microphone, convert it to digital data, and then send it across the network in real time to another cellphone in the police officer's car? Perhaps we could use some kind of numbering system to uniqlely identify each cellphone, with perhaps a three digit or short number for emergency services coordination.
Now for a name... hmm... well, obviously, it's phonic because that means sound, and it
Wanting to Help (Score:2)
Or reduce traffic stops... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If a traffic offense is occurring then they are putting other people at risk.
There are clearly many cases where that is not true, so calm down.
Or we could learn to talk to each other again (Score:2)
For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk.
-- Keep Talking - Pink Floyd [youtube.com]
Perhaps we need to put down our keyboards and screens and lean how to talk to each other again, in person. If we don't, we risk going back to being animals.
Yeah right (Score:2)
Because the disconnected communication on the internet has resulted in so much more meaningful conversation and much better sharing of information ? One sided expressions of opinions based on nothing but opinions are what the internet excels at. Net rage, manifestos, isolation and depression are the chief exports of the so called social networking scene. People in the days before texting, Facebook, Twitter and such were forced to interact with other people on some level and others saw you and could sense yo
stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
People already get shot for holding a cellphone [photograph...acrime.com] so what makes you think a smartphone app will improve the situation? Also, if you don't have a smartphone then will they just assume you are hostile and/or antisocial?
The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.
More than one problem (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.
No. There is more than one problem. That is sometimes one of the problems, because it is not like that is uniform either.
If people broke laws less, we would also have less need for police. So having too many laws is also a problem.
So is breaking the laws, and anything that incentivizes people to break the laws.
So is mistreating criminal suspects in ways which may be as you are trained to do, but which will cause their entire community to distrust police officers forever.
So is abuse of alcohol and inhibited judgment.
So is any society where the punishment for a simple misdemeanor includes not being able to rent an apartment.
So is a police culture where reporting a concern about a fellow officer's behavior makes you a pariah.
So is a society where police lives are at risk at every traffic stop.
It's not just one problem.
One minute (Score:2)
At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,"
60 seconds. Not more, otherwise it could hurt revenues.
Whoah, such sacrifice (Score:3, Insightful)
"At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,"
Wow, a whole minute. They must really have been broken up about all that murder and killing and stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, a whole minute. They must really have been broken up about all that murder and killing and stuff.
Server hamsters took a smoke break.
Ignores the ulterior motive of traffic stops (Score:4, Interesting)
This ignores the unspoken policy that traffic stops are not always about enforcing traffic law and collecting small fines, but rather the police want that interaction with the driver so they can fish for bigger violations. Traffic stops are "pretext stops", a loophole to get around the 4th amendment. [blogspot.com]
Running your plate and taking your ID isn't about making sure they assign points to the right person, but also about looking for wants and warrants. Getting you to roll down the window and talk to the officer isn't really about checking whether you smell like booze or pot, or seem nervous. There is no right to remain silent when an automobile is involved. [papersplease.org], and traffic stops are one of the most productive ways to find and arrest people with outstanding warrants.
More peaceful traffic stops (Score:2)
This app will reduce the potential violence associated with searching your car for cash to steal. Instead, it will just funnel your checking account balance to the police. A trained Animal Control officer will be dispatched to your home address to shoot the dog.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not actually the worst idea ever (Score:2)
For example you could install cop watch video recorder [apple.com] on your iPhone, it's just what came up first when I searched. There are similar apps for Android.
Re:or ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No one who intends on having a shootout with a couple of cops is going to tell them he's armed. And it's not like it would be the first time [youtube.com] cops have ordered someone to produce ID, then shoot them for reaching for their ID.
Re: (Score:2)
No one who intends on having a shootout with a couple of cops is going to tell them he's armed. And it's not like it would be the first time [youtube.com] cops have ordered someone to produce ID, then shoot them for reaching for their ID.
It's standard advice given to ALL firearms owners to be extremely careful telling an officer that they have a firearm in a traffic stop situation. Accidents happen regardless of race, and if you say something like "I have a gun" an officer's mind is IMMEDIATELY going to fixate on the word "gun" that you just said.
DO NOT EVER DO THAT.
DO NOT EVER DO THAT WHILE REACHING FOR ANYTHING AT ALL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:or ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:or ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Or perhaps police officers could try and be a bit less twitchy, and not shoot motorists who make a sudden move after being stopped for a broken taillight.
But *do* they shoot every motorist who makes a sudden move?
Really, straight up question. How many drivers are pulled over every day in America? How many of those result in LE shooting someone that might be innocent? Is it one out of every ten traffic stops? One out of a hundred? One out of 10,000 or one out of a million?
Can't help it, I'm a software developer. I always want to know what the numbers are. Anyone know of a source for the data?
Tragedy always sells papers or at least clicks these days, but what are the numbers?
Re: (Score:3)
Or...maybe pull your head out. How many armed robbers take along 4yo girls in the backseat?
If he "pulled a gun" the cops would be telling he pulled his gun. The cops shot an innocent man for no reason.
Morans.
Re: (Score:3)
Kids don't always have a playdate schedule which is compatible with armed robbery, so yes, they sometimes are brought along for the ride: http://wreg.com/2016/04/02/pol... [wreg.com]
I don't know if you've noticed, but the cops in MN have been pretty quiet thus far... not even confirming or denying if the deceased did in fact have a concealed carry permit.
Re:or ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you haven't heard. Police are never, ever responsible in these situations.
Tamir Rice was big, how could they have known he was only 12 years old? How could they have known his gun (which was in his pants when he was shot) wasn't real? How could they know Eric Garner would die from (not) choking him out? How could the police know Philippe wasn't reaching for a gun? How could the police know Freddie Gray would die of a broken back?
We've been told over and over, police have zero responsibility to find out what's going on before acting, zero responsibility for the consequences of those actions if the officer could reasonably be said to be afraid, zero responsibility for "accidents" that injure people due to police actions, and zero responsibility for "mistakes" like raiding the wrong house or shooting bystanders during a manhunt.
Everyone else is 100% responsible to make sure officers feel completely safe and respected at all times.
Re: (Score:3)
Police being untouchable seems to be a problem in many places. In the UK, a policeman called Simon Harwood covered his face and badge number and then murdered a guy who was walking home, and the whole thing was caught on camera. Even then, the jury wouldn't convict him. There's always some doubt, some way for the people in the jury to think that it was all just an honest mistake and surely these people who are there to protect them can't be violent thugs...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or...maybe pull your head out. How many armed robbers take along 4yo girls in the backseat?
Now you're participating in the same kind of broad assumptions that get people into trouble in the first place.
Re:or ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, if they suspected the occupants might be armed robbers, would the police just walk up to the driver's window and ask for ID? That just seems monumentally stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you could just keep your hands on the wheel and not unexpectedly reach for something in the car.
Everyone needs to know these simple rules when they are approached by the police:
Rule #1 - Don't run.
Rule #2 - Listen to what the police officer says.
Rule #3 - Do what the police officer tells you to do.
Rule #4 - Keep your mouth shut.
If you don't want to follow these rules and you don't understand why we need the police, just chimp out and get shot. We are trying to have a civil society, you don't belong here.
Re: (Score:3)
I've got an elderly white uncle who had police swarm him in his own yard because a passing driver didn't like how he was standing on the corner of his own property... when his wife ran out screaming "What are you doing? He's an army veteran, leave him alone!" they pointed several of their weapons at her... at which point she said "I'll go back inside"
He spent the next 45 minutes face down on the grass, handcuffed as they made sure he wasn't a threat.
Sometimes, it's not about race.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean obediently do everything they say and be a subservient gimp like you who just keeps their mouth shut no matter what happens.
This kind of attitude is exactly how people get themselves into trouble. If you are jealous of the officer's power then become an officer yourself. No, actually don't because people like you that resent police officers and don't feel you have to do what you say are very likely to abuse that power if you do get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:or ... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about the police just leave people alone unless there's a genuine danger?
Bringing the police into a situation can be dangerous for police and for those around them. So
1. repeal the laws that regulate non-violent, non-recklessly-dangerous behavior,
2. if you do decide to enforce some minor rule, the only means to enforce it is to take a photo and send a ticket in the mail,
3. make keeping everyone safe the #1 priority of police and hold them accountable for failures to keep people safe, even if it means criminals get away a lot more often
4. instruct officers that their role is to provide a service to the people in the community and their attitude needs to match that role unless they want a desk job
Re: (Score:3)
If Mr. Pishevar really wants to help, perhaps he should seek some advice from people and organisations who have a good grasp of the issues before offering solutions.
Maybe because the people in the trenches are least like to think over the horizon. Status quo incumbents tend to resist change, rather than initiate it. Most police departments haven't even adopted bodycams, and many don't even have dashcams, despite big documented advantages at reducing violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Most police departments haven't even adopted bodycams, and many don't even have dashcams, despite big documented advantages at reducing violence.
That's because for most police departments(since you're talking US), can't afford to. Most cops make diddly in money(Between $28k-55k), many have to buy everything from shoes/boots/puncture resistant gloves to their own guns and bullet proof vests as well. In some of the poorer police departments they even have to pay for the fuel for their patrol cars.
Jump north into Canada here, there are plenty of police services that are the same way. Especially for the people who are working in the asshole of nowher
Re:This app exists (Score:5, Insightful)
This capability already exists, but it's not an app. It's a loudspeaker behind the police car's grille. I have no idea how someone could come up with such a ridiculous idea, to use an app to communicate to a car.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was called a cell phone. gives the police an excuse for portal stingray devices.
Re: This app exists (Score:2, Insightful)
If you, as a police officer, tell someone to stay in the car and they get out, or you tell them to get out and they stay in, don't you think that's a pretty damn clear answer? You can't fix stupid, not even with an app.
Re: (Score:3)
Or deaf.
Re:This app exists (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is as it should be. You should never speak to the police. Let them run your plates, run your license and check your registration and insurance while you remain completely silent.
Talking to police who have stopped you has never been anything but a waste of time. Just do as they say and be on your way. If they wrong you, you take them to court AFTER you have complied with what they tell you to do.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a brilliant idea! Take out a large life insurance policy on your wife/husband/partner. When they're out running errands, call the car in stolen. Then the cop shoots them, because apparently we don't need trials or due process (AND grand theft auto carries the death penalty). Time to cash in!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
A bigger problem is Uber's clumsy one-dimensional approach. Michael Brown, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, etc. were unarmed and the police knew they were unarmed at the time that they killed them. So suggesting that the solution is to "reflect on gun violence", as if armed citizens are the root of the problem, is silly. If Uber is not willing to be balanced and constructive, then they should just stay out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
you are right about the Walter Scott shooting, the officer was wrong to shoot him while he was running away, they already knew who he was so they could have caught him later
i have to agree too that Eric Garner should not have been shot, he was only selling individual cigarettes on the street, if i was a cop i would have ignored Eric Garner and let him sell his cigarettes, i doubt he made
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Michael Brown was attacking the officer trying to take his firearm away, i would have shot him too in that situation
Sure. Michael Brown was a violent thug, and the preponderance of the evidence is that the shooting was justified. But he was unarmed when he was killed, and his death had little to do with "gun violence".
i have to agree too that Eric Garner should not have been shot
He wasn't shot. He was wrestled to the ground and died of a heart attack. He was unarmed, and the police never drew their weapons. "Reflecting on gun violence" would have done nothing to prevent his death.
if i was a cop i would have ignored Eric Garner and let him sell his cigarettes
If the police ignore people selling untaxed cigarettes, then all cigarettes will be sold untaxed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are attacked you have a right to reasonable defence. If you have a non-lethal option you are obliged to take it. If you can run away or otherwise avoid a deadly fight, you are obliged to. At least that's how it is in most developed countries.
Cops get some special powers because they have to arrest people. But those powers usually don't include executing people because they felt a little bit unsafe. For always has to be justified in terms of either preventing harm or making a lawful arrest.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you have a non-lethal option you are obliged to take it. If you can run away or otherwise avoid a deadly fight, you are obliged to. At least that's how it is in most developed countries.
Actually, that depends on the jurisdiction in the US, and the specific circumstances of the situation. Although it would generally be preferable (from a humanistic standpoint) to use an available non-lethal option, the sticking point is who has the burden of proof that an option was available. This comes into effect in the so-called Castle Doctrine (in common law) as well as Stand Your Ground laws, which extend this to anywhere you have a lawful right to be in.
Lethality is distinct from self-defense, but in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. That shouldn't happen. The police should continue to murder people who don't give the government their rightful cut.
Re: (Score:2)
If the police ignore people selling untaxed cigarettes, then all cigarettes will be sold untaxed.
They were taxed when Garner bought them from the store. In the US, we don't have VAT, we have sales tax, which is charged only once, when the retailer makes the sale; if Garner bought them at retail (which he did) it was paid.
Re: (Score:2)
but those cigarettes were taxed, Eric Garner paid taxes when he bought a pack of cigarettes
Eric Garner had multiple arrests for selling untaxed cigarettes, and the cigarettes he was selling the day he was killed did not have a tax stamp, as required by NY law. It is highly unlikely he paid tax on them, and selling "loosies" is illegal in itself. NYC has very high tobacco taxes, and smuggling cigarettes from low tax states (mostly in the South) is big business for organized crime.
i think the IRS should be abolished and a flat tax implemented that is fair and not too burdensome on the working class
Please define "fair". If a rich person and a poor person buy a gallon of milk, they pay exactly the same. Most peop
Re: (Score:2)
[...] and smuggling cigarettes from low tax states (mostly in the South) is big business for organized crime.
My father and uncles smuggled cigarettes from Oregon (no cigarette tax) to California (cigarette tax) to sell to construction workers out of the trunk of their cars in the 1950's. Some of my uncles went to smuggle moonshine and heroin in Idaho. A distant cousin made a living hauling coke between Cuba and Florida until he got caught by the Coast Guard. I always chuckled when my aunts in Idaho blame about drug dealers from California for drive-by shooting and rising real estate prices. Smuggling is an America
Re: (Score:2)
No, your family is just trash.
We're rednecks. Trailer trash is a different breed altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do your job (Score:4, Insightful)
Highly unlikely. Several states have similar or more restrictive controls on so called 'assault weapons'... and as we saw in San Bernardino, it didn't stop a thing.. and they even modified the rifles in a way which was illegal under California law. More so, during the 'ban', much the same rifles were still available, only with minor cosmetic changes to make them legal (ie thumb in hole stock instead of a pistol grip).
And yet the gun deaths are not evenly distributed across the country, instead they are primarily centralized in in a handful of locations... which if you discount their influence, the actual national rate drops like a rock.
Maybe it's not the firearms which are the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
I would do that... only given you failed to mention St Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Atlanta, Cincinnati or Oakland... I'm pretty sure I understand the numbers... because if they were equally distributed, why does a place like Plano, TX have such a rather low homicide rate? (Nyeh! it's a small town!) San Diego has a population of ~1.3 million but has a rate a third that of San Antonio (~1.4 million), why?
Why does Philadelphia have a rate twice that of Las Vegas? And th
Re: (Score:2)
San Diego has a population of ~1.3 million but has a rate a third that of San Antonio (~1.4 million), why?
Why does Philadelphia have a rate twice that of Las Vegas? And that when Vegas has a rate 2.5x that of San Diego?
I think the answer to that is obvious [google.com]... ;)
Re:Do your job (Score:4, Informative)
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, 50 Pulse patrons and many police would be alive right now.
Maybe. Maybe not. Norway has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet Anders Breivik [wikipedia.org] was able to kill 77 people. Seung-Hui Cho [wikipedia.org] killed 32 people with a pair of handguns. Timothy McVeigh [wikipedia.org] killed 168 with a truck full of fertilizer. Assault weapons are responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths in America.
The US needs to join Australia and Venezuela in stricter gun laws if the country is to actually have an actual future.
Perhaps, but that has very little to do with police-on-civilian killings. Trying to change the subject from excessive force by police, to disarming civilians, is misleading and unproductive.
As it stands now, the US is in the world's top five countries when it comes to people being killed by guns.
Wrong [wikipedia.org]. The US is #11.
Re: (Score:2)
The often used excuse is that many of those above us aren't industrialized first world countries... which somehow makes gun death ok?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Do your job (Score:4, Insightful)
As it stands now, the US is in the world's top five countries when it comes to people being killed by guns.
Wrong. The US is #11.
To be fair, it's top of the list of developed, "first world" nations, at 10.54 per 100k people. Next is Finland at 3.25, mostly due to suicides (the gun related murder rate is 1/10th that of the US). In fact all other developed nations have just a fraction of the gun crime per head of population.
What the US needs is a proper mental healthcare system, that helps people before they become violent or suicidal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, however up until he died, legally speaking he was stilt a good guy (just like most of the rest of the American population... having not been convicted of any crimes or subject to any other legal process which would prevent him from buying a firearm (just like most of the rest of the American population who do not use firearms for evil. Had the military properly discharged him in a non honorable way (as it sounds l
Re: (Score:2)
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, ... many police would be alive right now.
Reports are that Micah Johnson was armed with an SKS [wikipedia.org]. The SKS wasn't affected by the "Clinton assault weapon ban" as it didn't (by and large) fit the criteria set out. As a matter of fact it's still legal in California...
But it doesn't really matter. A shotgun and and a can of gasoline would let you do the same thing. Or just [wikipedia.org] the can of gasoline.
So, if you think you'll change anything material by outlawing semi automatic long guns with large capacity magazines, my money is on you waking up very disappointed
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the criminals doing the shootings and outright murders are the younger ones in the 20s-40s.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice circular logic you've got there.
How pray-tell do you expect to put the gun genie back in the bottle... even if you successfully repealed the second amendment and then legislatively banned all private ownership? There are over 300 million privately owned arms in the US, they can be built in a garage with simple tools from the hardware store, or you can get more advanced with a CNC or 3d printer if suddenly you can't b
Re: (Score:2)
Australia managed. And considering that pretty much everything on the continent that walks, slithers, crawls, swims, flys, or hops has at least the desire, and usually the ability, to kill you... often horrifically painfully; they had far more legitimate use for firearms than we do here.
Re: (Score:2)
Small problem... the United States is not Australia... and you ignored a whole lot of history.
Australia did have a gun buy back, but no where near all newly illegal firearms were turned in, and the mass shootings that the ban was imposed in response to were abnormal blips, not part of a trend.
One fact that most pointing to Australia forget is that guns aren't actually illegal there, just a few types are, and as a result they are still very popular: http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... [abc.net.au]
Again, assuming you succes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the constitutional issue, a new amendment being needed to be ratified in order to make such an operation legal.
Again, there are about as many firearms in this country as people... the only way to collect them is to go door to door, at the point of a gun to collect them... would the deaths resulting from that be more or less than those lost to unlawful use of firearms today? How then do you factor in the increase in deaths due to the inability to lawfully use arms for self-defense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: but.. (Score:2)
Being stubborn in defense of individual liberty, how horrible and inexcusable!
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly there is a cultural problem with some who think it legitimate to go shoot up cops protecting a protest, a school or movie theater.
If it was simply access to firearms that caused such things, you'd think they'd be more prevalent in places where firearms aren't overly difficult to acquire... yet they aren't at the same rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, I just got a call from Senator Dianne Feinstein, asking me to ask you not to misrepresent her view.
And who exactly is going to be the arbiter of what is 'legitimate' or not? Also, I've got some Christians calling saying they would like to sign up to regulate the proper forms of relationships & sexual contact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just walk up to the fucking car and hold a courteous conversation.
You'd be amazed how effective this can be.