The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Carlos del Vaca on May 09, 2006, 06:52:24 pm
-
Is yesterday's police station shooting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900649.html) making the news nationally?
That cop shop is all of two miles from my house. Fuckin' shitbag. Just listen to Slipknot or something, you'll feel better. Attacking cops in the parking lot of the station isn't going to fix things.
-
Well he did escape from a mental institution no?
This would lead me to believe the whole deal is something a little beyond mere "I am 18 and angry"; still sucks though.
-
He said Kennedy was dressed in complete camouflage gear and was armed with five pistols, an AK-47 assault weapon and a long-barreled hunting rifle. He said he was also carrying multiple ammunition pouches and bags with extensive ammunition.
Holy shit. I'm sure glad escaped psychiatric patients can get their hands on assault weapons!
-
This is of course a terrible thing but I have to admit that what jumped out at me was - this was the first officer shot and killed in the history of the department? I guess this is the girl from the Bronx speaking, but I was surprised that there are basically urban places where this could be true.
-
Fairfax is not all that urban. Even "Fairfax City."
High income usually yields low crime rates, and Fairfax County has one of the highest average household incomes in the country.
-
Fairfax is not all that urban. Even "Fairfax City."
High income usually yields low crime rates, and Fairfax County has one of the highest average household incomes in the country.
Maybe just crimes the average person doesn't see. Murders which don't involve shootouts but a single, well aimed bullet.
I always find it very upsetting when someone dedicates their life to protecting others, and to some people this makes them targets. Of course, you will always get police officers who simply treat the job as a power-trip, and it's a damn shame that this image of the bullying 'pigs' seems to permeate many peoples consciousness. Maybe it's a moot point, but games like GTA where you're rewarded for killing cops really sort of reinforce the image in SOME people that cops are just jackbooted *****s looking to keep us all down.
I can't do this justice, really.
-
Maybe just crimes the average person doesn't see. Murders which don't involve shootouts but a single, well aimed bullet.
I always find it very upsetting when someone dedicates their life to protecting others, and to some people this makes them targets. Of course, you will always get police officers who simply treat the job as a power-trip, and it's a damn shame that this image of the bullying 'pigs' seems to permeate many peoples consciousness. Maybe it's a moot point, but games like GTA where you're rewarded for killing cops really sort of reinforce the image in SOME people that cops are just jackbooted #####s looking to keep us all down.
I can't do this justice, really.
Damn straight! Cops aren't pigs! I licked a squad car once; it did NOT taste of bacon.
-
Man this entire topic could tear us all to tears. Do I bring up my staunch "Games like GTA do not reinforce viewpoints - correlation is not causation" ideal or "Mentally ill people probably should not have guns" angle.
I guess it depends which would create the best flamewar really.
This is like.. the time bomb of all topics. WHICH ONE WIRE DO I CUT?!
-
Man this entire topic could tear us all to tears. Do I bring up my staunch "Games like GTA do not reinforce viewpoints - correlation is not causation" ideal or "Mentally ill people probably should not have guns" angle.
I guess it depends which would create the best flamewar really.
This is like.. the time bomb of all topics. WHICH ONE WIRE DO I CUT?!
In an attempt to mitigate things, I wasn't really implying that GTA causes people to think they should kill cops: I just don't like policemen being portrayed in a negative light when there is no reason to do so. (Investigation of police corruption and suchlike is perfectly good.)
My 250th post was an attempt to stop a potential flamewar. I love this board.
-
In an attempt to mitigate things, I wasn't really implying that GTA causes people to think they should kill cops: I just don't like policemen being portrayed in a negative light when there is no reason to do so. (Investigation of police corruption and suchlike is perfectly good.)
My 250th post was an attempt to stop a potential flamewar. I love this board.
Well damn I was going to chime in, but you had to go and ruin it by being magnanimous. Goddamit.
-
(Investigation of police corruption and suchlike is perfectly good.)
And to me this would also make a more interesting computer game than shooting at stuff. But I suppose I'm in the minority.
-
And to me this would also make a more interesting computer game than shooting at stuff. But I suppose I'm in the minority.
There are some games like that actually but a lot of those 'adventure" type games have been out of fashion for a while. (Oh Grim Fandango; how I loved you. ((Also Sam and Max)))
Now I guess a similar thing would be those TV spinoff games based off of CSI, but I'm far to much of an elitist to allow those things in my house. (Where elitist = elitist prick I guess.)
-
And to me this would also make a more interesting computer game than shooting at stuff. But I suppose I'm in the minority.
.... Wombat, you are a genius! Maybe it could be one of those fairly non-linear games where you can either investigate police corruption stealthily, become a gun-toting rebel against your own force, or become a corrupt police chief! Holy shit!
I am thinking too much into this, but holy shit!
-
There are some games like that actually but a lot of those 'adventure" type games have been out of fashion for a while. (Oh Grim Fandango; how I loved you. ((Also Sam and Max)))
Now I guess a similar thing would be those TV spinoff games based off of CSI, but I'm far to much of an elitist to allow those things in my house. (Where elitist = elitist prick I guess.)
All kinds of yes, some of those old lucasarts games were just awesome. I remember particularly liking "Beneath a Steel Sky" and the whole "Monkey Island" series. I never have played Grim Fandango, can't find a copy as hard as I look. I would really love to play that game.
And to me this would also make a more interesting computer game than shooting at stuff. But I suppose I'm in the minority.
Well, that game wouldn't rule out shooting. I mean, once you find the crooked cop you could pull out your railgun and give him the ol' what for on some floating platforms in outer space. You just have to make sure that he doesn't get the BFG or you're totally pooched.
-
All kinds of yes, some of those old lucasarts games were just awesome. I remember particularly liking "Beneath a Steel Sky" and the whole "Monkey Island" series. I never have played Grim Fandango, can't find a copy as hard as I look. I would really love to play that game.
Yes Monkey Island. Also Day of the Tentacle. Anyway, I highly suggest you find a copy of Grim Fandango and play it now. It is by far one of the best games I've ever played EVER.. and I'm even including Fallout II in said game matrix. Seriously. I can get you a copy of it if that is what it takes even; such is the goodness of the game.
-
Yes Monkey Island. Also Day of the Tentacle. Anyway, I highly suggest you find a copy of Grim Fandango and play it now. It is by far one of the best games I've ever played EVER.. and I'm even including Fallout II in said game matrix. Seriously. I can get you a copy of it if that is what it takes even; such is the goodness of the game.
Yeah I've seen copies on amazon. But up untill recently online purchases weren't really a thing I did, nor was windows. Once I get windows (shudder) back on my pc, I'm totally buying it though.
ALSO: Maniac mansion rocked too.
And it is a little bit morbid, I think, to be waxing nostalgic about video games in a thread ostensibly about cops being shot.
I'm going to smile and pretend it isn't though.
-
Yes Monkey Island. Also Day of the Tentacle. Anyway, I highly suggest you find a copy of Grim Fandango and play it now. It is by far one of the best games I've ever played EVER.. and I'm even including Fallout II in said game matrix. Seriously. I can get you a copy of it if that is what it takes even; such is the goodness of the game.
My experiences with Fallout II were... traumatic. Like getting locked in a room, blocked by town mayor, with only exit available by shooting way out. When at Level 4, this proved fatal. My infrequent save-hands came to haunt me to the extent that I uninstalled the game, then later reinstalled it and played as a whore. Then I got lost in the desert and died somewhere near Reno.
-
Like getting locked in a room, blocked by town mayor, with only exit available by shooting way out.
Flip, this is right about where it gets morbid. I am sorry real life that we have dishonoured you in such a way, I'd commit hari kiri but I'm really not in the mood for the irony.
(Seriously, this place is like.. Discount WanderingThread Warehouse.)
-
There are some games like that actually but a lot of those 'adventure" type games have been out of fashion for a while. (Oh Grim Fandango; how I loved you. ((Also Sam and Max)))
Now I guess a similar thing would be those TV spinoff games based off of CSI, but I'm far to much of an elitist to allow those things in my house. (Where elitist = elitist prick I guess.)
Nygotha (http://www.insidepulse.com/articles/46332) is doing a countdown of the top 30 suspense games ever many of which are adventure games. You might be interested.
-
Nygotha (http://www.insidepulse.com/articles/46332) is doing a countdown of the top 30 suspense games ever many of which are adventure games. You might be interested.
Oh indeed I am.. and if that is the criteria I fully expect System Shock II on that damn list. Close-ish to the top.
-
It's probably worth noting that not only should you not shoot at police in their own parking lot, but not anywhere else either.
-
It's also probably worth noting that we should not shoot at anyone, neither in their parking lots, or, indeed, anywhere at all. Now we have cleared this up, may we return to Grim Fandango/System Shock II/pseudo-intellectual ethical debate?
-
Pseudo?
-
Would you prefer quasi?
-
No, delusional is more fitting I guess.. if you're coming from that perspective.
Speaking of which, man that hamster in the microwave in Maniac Mansion.. man oh man!
*sigh*
-
Man this entire topic could tear us all to tears. Do I bring up my staunch "Games like GTA do not reinforce viewpoints - correlation is not causation" ideal or "Mentally ill people probably should not have guns" angle.
I guess it depends which would create the best flamewar really.
This is like.. the time bomb of all topics. WHICH ONE WIRE DO I CUT?!
It was about here where y'all abandoned all pretense of the original topic.
Any other thoughts about the news item?
-
Flip--
I read one of your comments as "whip out your religion" on the corrupt cop.
and I was imagining a game where you have to morally persuade your enemies to fight for Good.
kind of like some of those scenes in The Untouchables.
this would be so hard to do.
-
Flip--
I read one of your comments as "whip out your religion" on the corrupt cop.
and I was imagining a game where you have to morally persuade your enemies to fight for Good.
kind of like some of those scenes in The Untouchables.
this would be so hard to do.
That, sir, is priceless.
-
Oh indeed I am.. and if that is the criteria I fully expect System Shock II on that damn list. Close-ish to the top.
He just got up to #8 this week and I don't recall seeing that one yet. But his top 30 RPGs list apparently caused a huge furor over the omissions.
-
Yeah well gamers are known to be only second to Cult members in their zealotry.
Oh and Star Trek geeks I guess.
And Star Wars geeks.
Actually the whole of Sci-Fi nerdom is probably a little ahead of gamers.
Music buffs too.
People who collect ceremonial knives.
Antique bottle collectors.
The Red Hat Society
The White Hat Society
Man... actually come to think of it; everyone's fucked up.
-
I know this is horrible.
horrible.
but something about the construction of the sentence "please do not shoot at police in their own parking lot." is really satisfying.
the reflexive possessive pronoun...
the period...
the "please"...
Mmmm.
It is not the content. Shooting police is unacceptable. I once got in a screaming, threatening-to-kick-her-out-of-my-car argument with my ex about her singing "fuck the police". I do not appreciate that sentiment. The police are doing their job-- their job which is to protect your ass and property.
Did anyone hear about the supreme court case where the guy was schizophrenic and thought his town was being taken over by aliens?
and he shot a police officer because he thought he was an alien coming to get him?
it led to such legal gems as (paraphrased) "no, he was not acting with a knowledge of the morality of his actions. Yes, he fled the scene. This was not due to moral knowledge... it was because he believed the alien overlord would come after him."
and all the justices were asking these really serious questions about it...
it was a case, actually, about the constitutionality of their refusal to give him the insanity defense.
the human mind is so fascinating. I love it. I love it.
and fear it.
-
Well the song fuck the police does indeed have some merit to it. I suspect the LAPD in the late 80's and early 90's were not (as a whole) the best thing to live around as a black youth. You can do the round robin finger pointing whether it was the chicken or the egg that started the whole deal but that gets you nowhere.
In essence, it is understandable that some of the LAPD would get cynical and essentially corrupt after dealing with the neighborhood, and it is understandable that the neighborhood would respond in kind. I guess what I'm trying to say is singing "Fuck the Police" is basically pretty low on the scale of "I'm going to kick you out of my car" offenses, but we each have our line.
-
It's probably worth noting that not only should you not shoot at police in their own parking lot, but not anywhere else either.
Sure. It's just that opening fire in the parking lot of a police station seems to greatly decrease one's chance of surviving the encounter.
-
Well the song fuck the police does indeed have some merit to it. I suspect the LAPD in the late 80's and early 90's were not (as a whole) the best thing to live around as a black youth. You can do the round robin finger pointing whether it was the chicken or the egg that started the whole deal but that gets you nowhere.
Not to mention that it is an AWESOME SONG. I mean, no offense intended but come on:
Fuck tha police
Comin straight from the underground
Young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority
You tell me that is not some lyrical flow skillz right there. You just try and tell me.
Also yeah, not in favor of killin po-po either, just recognizing.
-
That along with Wicked is really the only classic gangsta stuff I can hang with, but this is a whole other discussion.
You know, Ice Cube plays it up like he's running around with 14 AK's in his trunk, but I bet you could take him over to your mom's for dinner and he'd be a pretty nice guy.
Things would go to hell when he told grandma to "pass the motherfuckin' potatoes bitch!" after having a few cold brews though.
-
yeah
the issue was more that she totally bought into the idea that you should hate the police.
when, I mean, come on. She's a rich white teenage girl. they basically love her.
I will not deny that the song is catchy and maybe relevant in that time and place. But her turning it up and singing along because we're passing a police station was just rude.
although the fight had maybe more to do with her being a really bad girlfriend. maybe.
so, yeah.
-
TI: I think you've learned a lesson here.
A lesson about finding the real problem.
You can't blame all your problem on the 5-0 and Ice Cube dude, you just... well you can't.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is singing "Fuck the Police" is basically pretty low on the scale of "I'm going to kick you out of my car" offenses, but we each have our line.
Mine is 'chewing with your mouth open'. Seriously. Get out and walk.
-
So no love for Zack McCracken and the Alien Mindbenders? On the Commodore 128?
-
So no love for Zack McCracken and the Alien Mindbenders? On the Commodore 128?
Oh hell yes! I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE!
(Seriously, my 10 year old self sprayed soda on my friends computer when I read the broom's dialogue) It was a Commodore 64 in my case though. (SEPERATE FLOPPY DRIVE!)
-
C'mon, folks, where's the love for LOOM, it of such nonintuitive puzzles that an entire room of college students, working together, couldn't get past the first island? (Admittedly, we were not working at maximum mental capacity, but...)
-
A game that I recently got back into is the original Prince Of Persia. My Got this game is amazing. I remember playing it as a kid and I could never figure out the part where you fight your mirror image. It's tricky as hell! I finally beat it recently and I now have closure in my life. If you want to download it you can here (http://www.bestoldgames.net/eng/old-games/prince-of-persia.php).
-
C'mon, folks, where's the love for LOOM, it of such nonintuitive puzzles that an entire room of college students, working together, couldn't get past the first island? (Admittedly, we were not working at maximum mental capacity, but...)
If this is about the "opening the sky" bit, I seem to recall that the manual or one of the other included booklets had a hint regarding that.
-
If this is about the "opening the sky" bit, I seem to recall that the manual or one of the other included booklets had a hint regarding that.
I believe we got stuck on the twisty wind and, more specifically, on the other puzzle that we didn't even know was there but was a prerequisite for the twisty wind. Admittedly, we spent probably too much of our time plowing Bobbin into the waterspot over and over and laughing, so, y'know.
-
Well guys I tried, I really did. But for the life of me I couldn't get the sound to work. I tried downloading all sorts of patches and files but I just can't figure it out. So if you still want to play Loom you can download it here (http://www.questzone.ru/download/gr/loom.zip). But it will not have sounds. Also the game manual can be found here (http://files.the-underdogs.info//games/l/loom/files/loom.txt).
I want to get this working so there may be an updated post i the future...
(By the way, I've never played Loom so I'm only assuming that this is indeed the one and only Loom that you speak of. It starts with a hooded/cloaked figure standing under a tree with but one leaf.)
-
Not to be an ass, but the police are part of a system that is really messed up. I believe there are many fundamental problems with the way our society is run, and police are a facilitator to this. I think it is because I can't respect someone who's job is power based and can take me to jail for possessing plants or substances that affect no one but me. It could have something to do with the fact I may be facing some jail time, but I still have a fundamental problem with what they do for money. They are also usually assholes, which doesn't help.
-
I'm sympathetic to the idea that the possession of (some) drugs should be decriminalized. But the idea that using drugs impacts no one but the user is wrong. This doesn't mean that I think smoking marijuana should be a crime, but there are good reasons for laws that restrict or require actions that prima facie only impact the actor.
Anyway, I'm really sympathetic to cops. First, the only reason they can take you to jail is because a legislative body (full of people with power-based jobs) voted for by the people wrote a law. The police merely enforce it. I agree that the system--criminal justice, legislative, whatever--is messed up in some ways, but cops are underpaid and sometimes overworked people with really shitty and important jobs. I really don't think they have much to do with how the system is fucked up, even though some are corrupt and many are assholes.
I don't know, I'm a little drunk and really tired. I'm going to bed.
-
I think it is because I can't respect someone who's job is power based and can take me to jail for possessing plants or substances that affect no one but me.
I'm pretty sure those plants and substances come from somewhere, and definitely do affect someone. Sorry for the diagram, I can't explain it succinctly otherwise.
Users They pay (hypothetically) £3000 for the full product of drugs (this is many people remember)
|
The Dealers Might get around £50 profit for each load? Might be either hard done by or making a nice living on the side.
|
Regional Dealers Move drugs onto local dealers, get more profit and probably live comfortably as long as they bully for more money.
|
The Big International Dealers Send out drugs to the regional dealers, the middlemen. Make a lot of money. Mansions and such.
|
Regional Collecter Collects drugs from the local 'collectors', pass up to B.I.D. Probably do alright by the standards of their country.
|
Collectors Pick up the drugs from the farmers/processors. Do okay, depending on how much they can corrupt things.
|
The Farmers/Processors At the end of the chain, these poor souls farm opium or the like, and if they're lucky they might make a bit of profit off the dealers. If they refuse to farm the drugs any longer, they may be shot, threatened or have their farms sabotaged, once again forcing them to work in poverty to produce drugs for richer people around the world to huff. They might farm a little bit of food for themselves if they have enough land.
Even by growing your own (where do the seeds come from?), someone's personal possession of drugs probably DOES affect someone, or even many people, thousands of miles away.
This is probably wrong, but I remember it fairly distinctly from a geography textbook. No rudeness intended to anyone.
-
First of all, with the police bashing in this thread, I'd like to point out that the police are pretty necessary and often do a lot of good to protect your ignorant asses.
Having said that, there are some police officers who are frustrated stormtroopers looking to kick ass with impunity, and those few make the two percent who aren't that way look really bad.
-
Judy: Your diagram, I think, only applies to the black market drug trade, right? A lot of that could be cut out if drug trade was legalized. Not saying that there wouldn't be other drawbacks, of course, but it would be a different ballgame.
Even by growing your own (where do the seeds come from?), someone's personal possession of drugs probably DOES affect someone, or even many people, thousands of miles away.
But I think you are right about this. Fact is, drugs can influence non-users in many ways. This doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it's naive to think that there isn't a substantial societal impact from drug use.
-
I agree with miles and Judy. If you want to place blame, the best people on which to do so are legislators who enact laws that criminalise drug possession. Of course, this means that it is ultimately the fault of the constituents, meaning YOU. So, I don't know, join NORML or something. Sure, cops can be dicks, but so can anyone. I mean, look at Jough; he's not a cop, and he's G.O.D.!
-
My best friend's dad is the Captain of one of our police forces (Berkley, which is a city on the very edge of the main part of St. Louis but well within the Metro Area.) This has not only meant I had pretty kickass fireworks every year (from the confiscated bin), but also that I know a lot of cops. (which of course makes me an expert? Hell I dunno.. just giving my .02 here)
Cops have a pretty tough job really as they are the front line enforcers of what people supposedly want to enforce. (I say supposedly because with the low voting averages in the country we can't really pretend it's majority rule. Maybe majority rule of "those who care/know enough/etc." However, I will also concede that most people (I use most because with all generalities there are always exceptions) who are actually drawn to be cops should never be allowed to do so. It's like politicians, the people that have a desire to do that thing should be allowed nowhere near such a job if life made sense. It's usually for all the wrong reasons. Most of the cops I know like this really are good guys, but put them in the squad car and woooo it's on like Donkey Kong!
That being said, there are a number of honest and decent cops who are just doing their job and they get as frustrated as the rest of us when the dickular ones pound the pavement.
-
Yea, Judy, that is circular logic. I believe in personal freedom, which means people should be able to do what they wish. It is a provable fact that the reasons some drugs are illegal and others aren't is based on economics and racism.
Police apply the laws. Without them, they cannot be carried out. I understand cops are underpaid, but so are teachers, firefighters, soldiers, and pretty much everyone who has a public service job. But that doesn't mean I have symphathy for any of these people. Well, that is a lie, firefighters are cool. However, cops apply poor laws, meant to protect the rich, while the rich fuck them over. Teachers are paid to teach government propaganda that helps put children into a game with rules that only ruin life. Work hard to get to the top, or work hard because the powerful need their pawns to give them as much as possible? while the fools live off of wal-mart. Soldiers are okay, but standing armies are horrible. They are hired killers and are scum. You can say what you want, but it is true. Some have to either rob or go to the army to make a decent life, but I have more respect for the one that steal, deal, whatever they have to do to survive. And why do these soldiers fight? To gain resources or friendly governments for the rich and powerful, what a surprise. If you think the United States is good, then you are a fool. Your tax money, and mine, had gone to killing thousands of innocent lives since WWII, keeping the whole region of south america down so we can rob their land for our profit. Here are some things that detail that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_plan
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/cia-track2.htm
Are all instances of the United States using economic or military power to keep people that they don't care about down. I understand that is the way it works, and has for like the last 2000 years, but they never talked about freedom and took my money to do it.
But I think you are right about this. Fact is, drugs can influence non-users in many ways. This doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it's naive to think that there isn't a substantial societal impact from drug use.
Who says that the impact would be bad? Maybe people would realize that societies are based on cultural norms, not like scientific laws or something.
First of all, with the police bashing in this thread, I'd like to point out that the police are pretty necessary and often do a lot of good to protect your ignorant asses.
Having said that, there are some police officers who are frustrated stormtroopers looking to kick ass with impunity, and those few make the two percent who aren't that way look really bad.
Like that lawyer joke. 99% of lawyers give the good ones a bad name or something. I have always liked lawyers. They are the only ones that tell you like it is. I find them to be the least sleazy of all professions. Also, the only ones that will fight for your rights and against the government, even if you have to pay them.
-
actually, they did a study, and figured out that they were wrong in assuming a "normal" curve to police brutality. 10% of police generate 90% of police brutality complaints (maybe the actual numbers aren't this perfect. I don't remember.) It follows something called, ironically enough, power law (as opposed to the "bell curve").
"How can you know the societal impact would be bad?"
Have you ever met a heroin addict?
Or a crack addict?
Have you ever met a heroin addict's kid?
These are not people who are good for society (I mean, the kid was an example of impact. I don't mean that kids are bad for society.)
Personal freedom doesn't mean getting to fuck up other people's lives.
It's easy to say "fuck the police" when your ass is sitting in a warm house, with food, and there isn't anyone trying to kill you/rob you/rape your women/kill your children.
-
I have always liked lawyers. They are the only ones that tell you like it is. I find them to be the least sleazy of all professions. Also, the only ones that will fight for your rights and against the government, even if you have to pay them.
Selah.
-
I can't agree more with some of you and less with others.
KH's premise about some drugs being legal and others not due to economics is confusing....the enforcement of the laws is probably different, and the courts may deal with people differently for these reasons but I can't think of a drug that is legal (or illegal) and only available to certain people. It's a market and it's pretty much about affording the drugs.
That's why they are illegal, too. Drugs themselves, and even possibly most of the users are harmless when using. But the ultra-libertarian premise that people should be allowed to freely act can't work because human beings have varying levels of self control and respect for others' persons and property. Which is why there are laws and also why drugs are illegal. In communities where drugs are most rampant you often have the highest levels of property and personal crime. Chronic drug users become liabilities on the medical system. Unfortunately, there are people who use drugs, don't work, and cost money to maintain with public programs. Drug use costs employers in downtime and shoddy work, and health insurance and professional liability premiums. They may not be a large proportion of the users, but they are the most visible.
In many, many cases, like the bar on the corner where you might go for a beer after work, there is no crime. You have your drink or two, get on a bus or a train or even drive home little the worse for wear. 90% of us. But there are also those guys who drink for hours and get in the car and kill people. Same goes for marijuana - a few idiots make it bad for everyone. And every time you move down the continuum toward more addictive substances, the proportion of people interfering with others liberty and safety in some way goes up - because it's easy to victimize people, it's easy to take stuff, and a criminal can make his own hours.
-
I recently purchased a drug user a hit of his drug of choice.
I didn't do this intentionally, I performed this service by failing to take personal responsibility. I neglected to close my garage door. It remained open over night, and when I left for work the next morning, my hedge trimmers were gone.
An open door is an invitation.
-
Wow, I go away from the board for a few days and there's an interesting, civil discussion on drug legalization. Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles!
I somewhat favor legalization, but I can really understand both sides of the argument. On one hand, it is true that drugs affect more people than just their users and can have a detrimental effect on society; on the other hand, many of those effects are byproducts of drugs' illegality in the first place (things like high prices and the black market). Furthermore, we already have laws in place designed to protect others from being negatively affected by others' use of recreational substances -- drunk driving laws, anyone? I guess I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to make marijuana legal like alcohol and tobacco are legal: legal, but regulated, with punishment if you use those substances in a manner harmful to others.
The other problem with this debate is that you get the juxtaposition between basically harmless recreational substances like marijuana and things like cocaine and heroin, which are pretty bad news even in a context where they're legal. While their illegality still creates problems of organized crime and black-marketeering, it's still pretty hard to make an argument that they're benign enough to legalize totally... they present an interesting problem in this debate, one I don't know entirely how to reconcile. The first possible solution that comes to mind is "legal on a prescription basis," but vanishingly few people have any legitimate medical uses for these drugs. Hmmm.
-
I haven't studied the phenomenon in depth, but it seems to me that a lot of people think that the illegal drug trade would go away if you legalized it.
I suspect that the underground market would persist - it seems to me that legalization would include controls, possibly registration, and other necessary regulations (not to mention taxes) that would keep people away from the legitimate market. Unless there is some sort of massive culture change that would make it OK (non-stigmatic) for people to use drugs and be known as drug users, it seems to me that there will always be that secondary market.
-
But isn't the problem that even if drugs were legal, drug addicts would still not be good at holding down jobs? So they'd still have to steal smick's hedge trimmers to make money to buy drugs. So you might get rid of the kind of criminal who breaks the law by selling drugs, but there'd still be the kind of drug-related crime that directly affects the average person.
-
I haven't studied the phenomenon in depth, but it seems to me that a lot of people think that the illegal drug trade would go away if you legalized it.
I suspect that the underground market would persist - it seems to me that legalization would include controls, possibly registration, and other necessary regulations (not to mention taxes) that would keep people away from the legitimate market. Unless there is some sort of massive culture change that would make it OK (non-stigmatic) for people to use drugs and be known as drug users, it seems to me that there will always be that secondary market.
I'd think it would follow the sex-toy market. Lots of people are too ashamed to go to stores and buy butt-plugs and real-dolls but are perfectly fine buying them online. Plus no sales tax.
-
I can't agree more with some of you and less with others.
KH's premise about some drugs being legal and others not due to economics is confusing....the enforcement of the laws is probably different, and the courts may deal with people differently for these reasons but I can't think of a drug that is legal (or illegal) and only available to certain people. It's a market and it's pretty much about affording the drugs.
I meant when the first became illegal. I will say more later, but for now:
"1936 - 1938: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire fuels a tabloid journalism propaganda campaign against marijuana. Articles with headlines such as Marihuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days; Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust create terror of the killer weed from Mexico.
Through his relentless misinformation campaign, Hearst is credited with bringing the word marijuana into the English language. In addition to fueling racist attitudes toward Hispanics, Hearst papers run articles about marijuana-crazed negroes raping white women and playing voodoo-satanic jazz music.
Driven insane by marijuana, these blacks -- according to accounts in Hearst-owned newspapers -- dared to step on white men's shadows, look white people directly in the eye for more than three seconds, and even laugh out loud at white people. For shame!"
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj004.htm
Here is a better article: http://www.rivetmagazine.org/articles/R15/hashing.html
Have you ever met a heroin addict?
Or a crack addict?
Have you ever met a heroin addict's kid?
These are not people who are good for society (I mean, the kid was an example of impact. I don't mean that kids are bad for society.)
Personal freedom doesn't mean getting to fuck up other people's lives.
yes, yes and no. They were not that bad, but the crack addicts would rip you off if they got a chance. However, they are going to be there whether or not you legalize drugs. You can either put them in jail and pay for them because you don't think smoking rock is good, or you can legalize it and create cheaper products, reducing crime. As for their kids, what is the difference between them and the ones who's parents work all the time or are alcoholics?
Here is another article: http://www.njweedman.com/history_of_drugracism.html
to see if you are interested, here is the first paragraph:
The association of particular drugs with hated minority groups and foreign enemies has a long and colorful history in the United States. The association of opium with the Chinese, of cocaine with Blacks, of, alcohol with urban Catholic immigrants, of heroin with urban immigrants, of Latinos with marihuana, the claim that a myriad of foreign enemies were using these drugs against the U.S., and the image of drug crazed bohemians such as Ludlow, Baudelaire, and DeQuincy all were integral to the propaganda that generated the prohibitionist policies on each of these drugs.
-
Thought I'd throw in a few cents here. I'm in favor of drug legalization to an extent. I can certainly see people's reasoning for not wanting unconstrained consumption of highly addictive substances to be legal, but when you look at the drugs that are being prescribed to people these days (http://wigu.com/overcompensating/2006/05/paxil-shmaxil.html), to kids and adults, it really makes me wonder how a government can justify spending billions of tax dollars putting people in prison for possessing a few grams of marijuana.
[This post preserved as evidence in the case of Literacy Vs. Me]
-
The problem, once again, is that it depends on the drug. I honestly believe that, for marijuana, you would essentially destroy the black market if it was legalized; while you might still have small-scale growers and sellers, there don't seem to be any major barriers (beyond supply, which can presumably be alleviated) to legal marijuana being as relatively inexpensive as cigarettes, and there isn't a huge moral stigma attached to marijuana use the way there is to, say, heroin use.
The problem with a lot of the "inability to hold down jobs" argument, I think, is that there are already perfectly legal drugs that can have the same negative effects if abused. God only knows that alcohol can, if abused, keep somebody from being able to hold down a job and promote domestic violence and harm to others, but nobody seems to be arguing anymore that it should be illegalized. While I will admit that harder drugs are more problematic, and while any drug can be abused, I can't see marijuana being intrinsically more likely to cause harm than alcohol.
-
This discussion doesn't even need to be had: we can all just agree that there should be mild amounts of THC in the world's water supply. Problems solved.
-
Holy shit. I'm sure glad escaped psychiatric patients can get their hands on assault weapons!
Assault weapons have been regulated by the NFA since 1934, or did you mean "weapons which cosmetically resemble fully-automatic firearms but lack the happy-switch"?
-
to see if you are interested, here is the first paragraph:
The association of particular drugs with hated minority groups and foreign enemies has a long and colorful history in the United States. The association of opium with the Chinese, of cocaine with Blacks, of, alcohol with urban Catholic immigrants, of heroin with urban immigrants, of Latinos with marihuana, the claim that a myriad of foreign enemies were using these drugs against the U.S., and the image of drug crazed bohemians such as Ludlow, Baudelaire, and DeQuincy all were integral to the propaganda that generated the prohibitionist policies on each of these drugs.
That is interesting. I think that history should be considered in context, though - Racism is racism; I view this discussion of the substances abused as just another stereotype to go with laziness, or greed, or criminal proclivity. I grew up in the 80's so I associate powder cocaine with guys who wear ties, work in tall buildings and live in the suburbs. And Heroin with vietnam vets. I think a lot of those associations are contextual to your experience, the norms and mores of the time, and obviously your psychology. Today, we don't see the yellow journalism and objectionable stereotypes that were apparently permissable 100 years or so ago, but we do see the bad side of drug abuse - the crime, the destruction of families, the reduction of potential through lost work opportunities, impaired abilities, and the like. And we still see racism, occasionally associated with the drug use but I think less so, at least overtly, than back then.
It's interesting to consider that some Black leaders use the racism card the other way; rather than the myriad of enemies using the drugs against the US, the CIA imports crack cocaine to keep Black communities fragmented. I think that the writings you cite can be distilled to a few messages: 1) that there was a lot of very overt racism at that time and 2) that it was recognized even then that drugs were a recognized problem in communities and especially minority communities and 3) that racist people will use any lever they can find to fan hatred for a minority group. I'm not convinced that the drugs were made illegal specifically for racist reasons. From those few black leaders perspective, were it legalized, I can envision some sayint that it would be legalized for racist reasons.
And V-. yeah, mostly agree about the marijuana. I'd much rather share the road with a pot smoker than a drunk. The pot smoker is going 15 miles an hour and laughing the whole way. However, I'm not sure about the black market part - the tax on the pot and the expense of maintaining whatever government structures you place to control it would probably make pot cheaper outside the system.
This is the reason why hijacking cigarette trucks still occurs. Smokes cost a lot (If you can't get to an Indian reservation to buy them) and the tax is a huge bite. There is a black market for cigarettes and, booze even aside from illegally distilling your own... anyone who lives in NY, OH, MI has made a run to Canada for booze for a wedding or a party at some point, because it's cheaper - point being, there are grey-to-black markets for very common things (pharmaceuticals from Canada and Mexico, too) so there is no reason for me to believe marijuana wouldn't fall into that category if it were legalized and controlled.
-
Assault weapons have been regulated by the NFA since 1934, or did you mean "weapons which cosmetically resemble fully-automatic firearms but lack the happy-switch"?
An assault weapon does not have to be fully automatic. The NFA act prohibited so-called "machine guns". (Probably a response to the whole Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, etc. thing) Assault weapons are defined in various ways but generally, a semi-automatic weapon with a high-capacity detachable magazine (10 rounds +) would not fall under the NFA act but would be considered an assault weapon. Other characteristics that can make a weapon an assault weapon include threaded muzzle (for sound/flash suppression), bayonet mount, forward pistol grip, a pistol with the magazine attached outside the grip, and, silly in my opinion, semi-automatic weapons designed to replicate military weapons (i.e. M-16 or AK-47 styling). Also, some states have caliber restrictions, i.e. 50 caliber weapons are considered assault weapons in CA.
-
good lord, I am terrified of guns.
-
An assault weapon does not have to be fully automatic. The NFA act prohibited so-called "machine guns". (Probably a response to the whole Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, etc. thing) Assault weapons are defined in various ways but generally, a semi-automatic weapon with a high-capacity detachable magazine (10 rounds +) would not fall under the NFA act but would be considered an assault weapon. Other characteristics that can make a weapon an assault weapon include threaded muzzle (for sound/flash suppression), bayonet mount, forward pistol grip, a pistol with the magazine attached outside the grip, and, silly in my opinion, semi-automatic weapons designed to replicate military weapons (i.e. M-16 or AK-47 styling). Also, some states have caliber restrictions, i.e. 50 caliber weapons are considered assault weapons in CA.
Well, if you're going to take the misused terminology of the so-called 1994 crime prevention act which merely banned features and use that to say "this is what an assault weapon" is, then just say so. An assault weapon is any weapon used to assault people, OR a mid-caliber weapon with full auto capabilities... 10 rounds is not high capacity, we've had twenty round handguns since the Civil War. ;) In CA, .50 caliber weapons are banned because everyone knows that they can shoot down satellites, airliners, destroy fuel tank railcars, and pass through a dozen orphanages and daycare centers without stopping.
-
Well, if you're going to take the misused terminology of the so-called 1994 crime prevention act which merely banned features and use that to say "this is what an assault weapon" is, then just say so. An assault weapon is any weapon used to assault people, OR a mid-caliber weapon with full auto capabilities 10 rounds is not high capacity, we've had twenty round handguns since the Civil War. ;) In CA, .50 caliber weapons are banned because everyone knows that they can shoot down satellites, airliners, destroy fuel tank railcars, and pass through a dozen orphanages and daycare centers without stopping.
(emphasis added by AD)
Fooker - if you are transparently anti-gun, that's OK. But I'm not misusing any terminology, I'm only stating how the definition is generally applied. There are also assault cars, baseball bats and hands that are assault weapons under your broad definition, but in this case 'assault' is used in the military sense, not the 'personal violence' sense. Also, my statement is neutral in that I don't have an opinion about the NFA act or what is or isn't an assault weapon - (with the exception of the word 'silly' applied to the replica guns (and clearly stated as my opinion)) it's just a statement of fact. It's a definition. If you disagree with the definition, contact your congressional delegation and work in changing the legislation. Clearly you have a strong opinion, and good for you - but don't take it out on me when all I do is explain what is and isn't covered under NFA.
Also, an 'assault weapon' need not be fully auto as you state. A mid-caliber semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine holding >10 rounds (or a handgun with a magazine that extends beyond the grip or attaches outside the grip) qualifies. Any weapon that fires and chambers a single round without the shooters action beyond pulling the trigger is semiautomatic. If you need to throw a bolt, cock a lever or if the weapon has a revolving chamber it's not semiautomatic.
This next part is my opinion.
Inevitable - I'm sorry you're afraid of guns. But since there are lots of people with really bad experiences that cause them to be afraid of guns, I won't tell you you should or shouldn't, but I would ask you to think about why you're afraid of them and how your experience with guns and/or people with guns has shaped your feelings about guns.
I've had to have words with more than one school about the whole 'all guns are bad' thing they try to tell my kid. What does a soldier or a cop look like to a kid who has been taught that all guns are bad? She knows she should tell a parent or a policeman if she sees a gun. She knows she should never ever touch a gun unless her mom or I are with her and tell her it's OK. And she knows that a person with a gun can kill another person, even by accident. I try to avoid attaching a moral value to the concept of a gun - it's an inanimate object, a device, a tool. But I do try to teach her to respect it's power and potential for destruction in the wrong hands. For those of you interested the NRA has a safety program for kids called Eddie the Eagle Gunsafe (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/)
I agree with the ban on assault weapons and also machine guns. I also agree with requiring people to qualify to own a gun - and it should be any gun. And the stiffer the requirements, the better within reason. I agree with harsher punishments for gun crimes. But I don't believe a firearms ban is a feasible or reasonable idea in today's America.
My seven year old daughter will probably get to shoot some very small guns (or possibly air guns) at the Shooters Fair in Hawaii in July. I want to take her to understand that there are many, many people with guns who are not police or soldiers that are good, careful and professional people. She can make up her own mind about the politics and morality of guns later, and she surely will. But I don't want her to make that decision in a vacuum of experience and knowledge.
I also believe that the owner of a gun should be at least partially responsible for a crime committed with the gun - particularly in the cases where a teenager gets a dad or uncle's gun and carries out some kind of crime...like a school shooting or the kid shooting at the police. An unsecured gun should result in its owner bearing some share of responsibility for the crime.
-
I'm scared of guns because regardless of how careful or professional one is, being in a room with a gun raises my chances of dying spontaneously to a statistical level that I'm just not comfortable with. I'll agree that a all-out ban on guns is probably not neccessary or even a good solution to gun violence, after all there are plenty of people who own guns all their lives without killing anyone, but seeing as they are devices built expressly for the purpose of killing things and are very good at that, their sale and usage definitely need to be regulated and documented. And that's all I'll say on that.
-
Funny that none of my guns have killed a person or animal, not even once. They're steadily working toward causing paper targets to go onto the endangered species list, though. ;)
Even more amazing- not once has one of my guns lept out of the safe and started killing people. I once sat my Krinkov pistol on the coffee table and watched it for several days, and it didn't even go off once!
By the way, guns already are heavily regulated. Do you think that more is the answer? That'll be a resounding success, much like the current war on some drugs.
-
Ok, Fooker, so you don't seem to be anti-gun! I can't figure if you think the legislation goes too far or not far enough...and, I'm sure explaining what semi-auto means is not something you need to know, so I'll consider that background for the readers who may not have that knowledge. Also, you get a tiny can. It's also interesting to note that legislation also mandates the US made or imported semiautomatic weapons be nearly impossible to convert to full auto and manufacturing specifications are regulated to make sure. (Although I'm sure that there are hobbyists out there with the capability and probably the experience).
Flip, you are right. But the statistical change in your chances of death are probably not nearly as high as if you, say, eat a lot of red meat or get behind the wheel of a car. You also get a tiny can as does The Inevitable.
Being concerned, conscious and responsible about the presence of guns is a good thing. Being paranoid about the presence of guns is usually a bad thing although there are undoubtedly situations where it's not paranoia but a very rightful high level of concern. Hope you never get in that situation and if you do, you get out quickly.
-
yes. I realize that my absolute fear of guns is probably irrational. I cannot attribute it to any specific story or circumstance. They just really scare me. I appreciate that some people can handle guns in a safe manner.
my assertion (that I am scared on guns) is mostly based on a time as a young child when I was shown some guns (while touring a police station with my cub scout troupe) and completely freaked out.
-
(emphasis added by AD)
I also believe that the owner of a gun should be at least partially responsible for a crime committed with the gun - particularly in the cases where a teenager gets a dad or uncle's gun and carries out some kind of crime...like a school shooting or the kid shooting at the police. An unsecured gun should result in its owner bearing some share of responsibility for the crime.
I didn't think that I would agree with you on any of the subjects in this thread, but this is the exception.
-
Hoplophobia is the same thing as being scared of ladders, deep water, or cars. It isn't a bad thing and if you are really bothered by it you can always cure it through controlled exposure.
-
Hoplophobia is the same thing as being scared of ladders, deep water, or cars. It isn't a bad thing and if you are really bothered by it you can always cure it through controlled exposure.
My opinion on irrational fears is that usually they aren't bad, but if there is a chance that a person could be crippled in a situation where it could become a life or death situation for themselves or others, then they should seek some kind of treatment. Fear of guns may not be one in this category, but I've seen situations where fear of heights, being outside, or claustrophobia has forced rescuers to divert decisions and attentions to an indvidual in a group that could have jeopardized the whole operation.
-
Yes exactly
Some people just are not comfortable around guns and that is cool and ok in my world.
Some people really do not like people who have anything to do with guns and try to distort the truth to get some petty sense of power over them. That is not cool dogg.
-
yeah. my parents are actually the same way. they are basically worried about anyone who has guns around. maybe this is irrational, but, you know. I get it from them.
I think maybe I am desensitized at this point, because of:
-Living in The South.
-Watching a lot of violent movies (although, most of them still bother me a lot. I walked out of Kill Bill because I couldn't handle it. Yes, I am a little girl-man.)
I remember an age where if someone had a gun in a movie, I would get scared. that is past. so maybe the gun-fearing is over.
-
I would like to own a gun so that if I was mugged I could cooly unholster the piece and say something suitably threatening and watch the rabbits run. (Basically, for protection. I am paranoid about being beaten on the street. It must be the women's clothing.)
But people kill each other with guns all the time... when they were 'protecting' themselves. I think I could rely on myself not to shoot someone out of anger or clumsiness, but then again lots of people say that. And then they shoot people.
So, I would not own a gun, and maybe other people shouldn't. It's a topic I cannot do justice.
-
I think I would own a gun if I ever got a really crappy house. Only so I could put my car on the lawn and shoot at it. I've seriously always wanted to do that, I'm not even joking. That sounds awesome.
-
I would not do that unless you had a house in the country. Bullets are dangerous for about a mile, but if you look around you will probably find a local shooting range that will let you park the car on the firing line and shoot it up, maybe there are also some cops who need to do a little training to see how their ammunition does against auto glass and metal. It will be enlightening and fun for everyone and probably not cost you any money at all except to have the destroyed car taken to a junkyard at the end and even then maybe someone else will pick that up.