New L.A. gun control law proposed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

of course you don't. regardless of whether it's in the long run beneficial for those who are of the low socio-economic class, of whatever race.

so why do you hate poor people, by refusing to allow proactive policing?

The irony is that good innocent people like Pedroh are usually the victims. I just don't get why he doesn't want to minimize his chance and his families chance of being a victim. I would rather the police do their job and target the perpetrators than ending up a victim of crime. I would want police to be able to pull over a car load of males cruising at 3am in the morning.

The double irony is that under your law Pedroh would become the victim - of institutional prejudice.

Pedroh has a right to drive his car at 3am without being pulled over for being a "suspicious latino" out later than he should be.

Conversely if Pedroh were out loading up a van with flatscreen TVs and household electronics from a house in the middle of the night - a passing patrol might ask questions.

[Heracles 417]

The double irony is that under your law Pedroh would become the victim - of institutional prejudice.

Pedroh has a right to drive his car at 3am without being pulled over for being a "suspicious latino" out later than he should be.

Conversely if Pedroh were out loading up a van with flatscreen TVs and household electronics from a house in the middle of the night - a passing patrol might ask questions.

I would rather be a victim or random checks than be dead but he that is me. I am sure you have other views coming from your comfy neighborhood.

Your example is also fear mongering. Police are not idiots. Pedroh hardly looks like a gang banger. He would also probably be buying it from Walmart so that is quite common.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Aficionado

[pedroh 21]

of course you don't. regardless of whether it's in the long run beneficial for those who are of the low socio-economic class, of whatever race.

so why do you hate poor people, by refusing to allow proactive policing?

The irony is that good innocent people like Pedroh are usually the victims. I just don't get why he doesn't want to minimize his chance and his families chance of being a victim. I would rather the police do their job and target the perpetrators than ending up a victim of crime. I would want police to be able to pull over a car load of males cruising at 3am in the morning.

The double irony is that under your law Pedroh would become the victim - of institutional prejudice.

Pedroh has a right to drive his car at 3am without being pulled over for being a "suspicious latino" out later than he should be.

Conversely if Pedroh were out loading up a van with flatscreen TVs and household electronics from a house in the middle of the night - a passing patrol might ask questions.

shhh!!! don't rat me out

[tmma 467]

My .01c here.

Someone said that "the new laws will not affect the responsible gun owners"...and that's prob true, but I think it isn't going to do much of a squat about the illegal gun owners either, because they usually obtain their weapons without formal registration or criminal background checks....( i.e 'on the street'), and they'll get them and use them regardless of whatever 'laws' are in place.

edit-grammar.

how many times have we heard that mantra before?

LOADS, and it's not an effective point of argument.IMO

[Heracles 417]

We are on two completely different wavelengths. I want to target the problem directly. Whereas you are more concerned about the innocent bystanders who will be targeted because of their similarities to the culprits. Much in the same way freedom is defended by a barrel of a M16, violence cannot be solved without collateral damage.

No... what you are suggesting is that its fine to target 100% of a people because of 5-10% of wrongdoers.

So lets just do nothing in the name of being PC and civil rights. I can see how well that worked for both the United States and London. So while I watch stories on the local news every few days about those in low socioeconomic areas being shot dead, I will at least know the murderers civil rights where not violated.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Aficionado

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

My .01c here.

Someone said that "the new laws will not affect the responsible gun owners"...and that's prob true, but I think it isn't going to do much of a squat about the illegal gun owners either, because they usually obtain their weapons without formal registration or criminal background checks....( i.e 'on the street'), and they'll get them and use them regardless of whatever 'laws' are in place.

edit-grammar.

how many times have we heard that mantra before?

LOADS, and it's not an effective point of argument.IMO

don't we usually hear that used when a law is introduced, and forgotten about before the law is expanded to include responsible gun owners?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The double irony is that under your law Pedroh would become the victim - of institutional prejudice.

Pedroh has a right to drive his car at 3am without being pulled over for being a "suspicious latino" out later than he should be.

Conversely if Pedroh were out loading up a van with flatscreen TVs and household electronics from a house in the middle of the night - a passing patrol might ask questions.

I would rather be a victim or random checks than be dead but he that is me. I am sure you have other views coming from your comfy neighborhood.

Your example is also fear mongering. Police are not idiots. Pedroh hardly looks like a gang banger.

But BY you're forgetting something. He's hispanic looking...

To use your reasoning if he's out late in his car it must be assumed he's up to no good because there's a X% chance over the average - and that this reasoning alone is justification for pulling him over.

To go further with your reasoning - when pulled over Pedroh must fork his license over with a $hit-eating grin and a plethora of "yes, sirs" because he knows that his being singled out for this treatment is for his own good.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

We are on two completely different wavelengths. I want to target the problem directly. Whereas you are more concerned about the innocent bystanders who will be targeted because of their similarities to the culprits. Much in the same way freedom is defended by a barrel of a M16, violence cannot be solved without collateral damage.

No... what you are suggesting is that its fine to target 100% of a people because of 5-10% of wrongdoers.

So lets just do nothing in the name of being PC and civil rights. I can see how well that worked for both the United States and London.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

shhh!!! don't rat me out

We are on two completely different wavelengths. I want to target the problem directly. Whereas you are more concerned about the innocent bystanders who will be targeted because of their similarities to the culprits. Much in the same way freedom is defended by a barrel of a M16, violence cannot be solved without collateral damage.

No... what you are suggesting is that its fine to target 100% of a people because of 5-10% of wrongdoers.

So lets just do nothing in the name of being PC and civil rights. I can see how well that worked for both the United States and London. So while I watch stories on the local news every few days about those in low socioeconomic areas being shot dead, I will at least know the murderers civil rights where not violated.

That's the only alternative is it?

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

shhh!!! don't rat me out

btw, pedroh, it's not unusual for some to think i'm hispanic either - i'm darker than nessa.

[Heracles 417]

But BY you're forgetting something. He's hispanic looking...

To use your reasoning if he's out late in his car it must be assumed he's up to no good because there's a X% chance over the average - and that this reasoning alone is justification for pulling him over. To go further with your reasoning - when pulled over Pedroh must fork his license over with a $hit-eating grin and a plethora of "yes, sirs" because he knows that his being singled out for this treatment is for his own good.

Where is your proof that this will occur under tougher measures? Where is your proof that someone like Pedroh will be questioned "while loading his TV"?

Same arguments are used against proactive policing. That we will become some sort of V for Vendetta / Children of men police state.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But BY you're forgetting something. He's hispanic looking...

To use your reasoning if he's out late in his car it must be assumed he's up to no good because there's a X% chance over the average - and that this reasoning alone is justification for pulling him over. To go further with your reasoning - when pulled over Pedroh must fork his license over with a $hit-eating grin and a plethora of "yes, sirs" because he knows that his being singled out for this treatment is for his own good.

Where is your proof that this will occur under tougher measures? Where is your proof that someone like Pedroh will be questioned "while loading his TV"?

Same arguments are used against proactive policing. That we will become some sort of V for Vendetta / Children of men police state.

Dunno about "proof" but your reasoning seems to indicate that not only should he expect to be pulled over, but be happy about it too because its better than being dead.

As to the other point - I'm suggesting the completely outrageous possibility that a person seen (any person really) engaging in a suspicious activity can expect to be asked questions by a passing police patrol.

Simply being "hispanic" and out late - is not a reason for suspicion.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

You're having a laugh now mate aren't you? Seriously dude your reasoning helps no one, least of all these people you think you are helping.

We are on two completely different wavelengths. I want to target the problem directly. Whereas you are more concerned about the innocent bystanders who will be targeted because of their similarities to the culprits. Much in the same way freedom is defended by a barrel of a M16, violence cannot be solved without collateral damage.

If Australians represented a majority of gang bangers, I would have no qualms with the government saying Australia's should not be allowed to own guns. Whereas you are basically suggesting all guns should be banned to ensure PC. Effectively punishing everyone rather than the perpetrators of crime. Then again this is a very British chain of thought. It does happen in AUS quite a bit. Punish everyone for the actions of the few just to be PC.

When did I say that? I am quite happy to have some gun legislation that can usefully be used - for example the suggestion in the OP that if you commit certain crimes you lose your right to gun ownership. What I am not happy about is using dodgy rationale to target ethnic groups for 'special treatment' all in the name of public safety. I don't want to live in a totalitarian state.

[Heracles 417]

Dunno about "proof" but your reasoning seems to indicate that not only should he expect to be pulled over, but be happy about it too because its better than being dead.

As to the other point - I'm suggesting the completely outrageous possibility that a person seen (any person really) engaging in a suspicious activity can expect to be asked questions by a passing police patrol.

Simply being "hispanic" and out late - is not a reason for suspicion.

Let me sum up your logic: As long as a gang member is not stereotyped nor their civil rights violated all is good. If an innocent bystander happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they should have 'known better'. So if your spouse six ends up in a bad neighborhood then she deserved it. Lets not proactively clean up these neighborhoods. Rather, lets just ensure their civil rights and various amendments are not violated. The victims after all are just collateral damage of a free society.

I am sure you can suggest this all while living in the comfort of your middle to upper class neighborhood. Good old out of sight out of mind argument. God help anyone who tries to clean up those neighborhoods in America. It will turn in a Iraq situation where those who are there to clean up are the bad guys for stirring up the gangs resulting in the deaths of others.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suspect BY wants to "rule" a totalitarian state.

I wonder if he's cultivated a mustache yet - the Hitler one-incher or the Joe Stalin / Tom Selleck. What an agonising choice.