Will this stock market madness affect cards?

[gawaintheknight]

If you are taking responsibilities away from the police, then you can also take the money to pay for those responsibilities from the police. That seems pretty obvious to me.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by gawaintheknight

If you are taking responsibilities away from the police, then you can also take the money to pay for those responsibilities from the police. That seems pretty obvious to me.

If you really want to see what a lawless society looks like, read a history book. The Wild West already happened. I don't recommend repeating it, but what do I know.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

If you really want to see what a lawless society looks like, read a history book. The Wild West already happened. I don't recommend repeating it, but what do I know.

The people (liberals) who are talking about defunding or disbanding the police have traditionally called for stricter gun control too. If they get their way it would be worse than the wild west, because only the lawless would be fully armed.

[gawaintheknight]

Sure, because all the European countries with stricter gun control laws, to say nothing of Japan, Canada, New Zealand or Australia, have much higher murder rates than the United States. Everyone knows that, right?

Originally Posted by Mark17

The people (liberals) who are talking about defunding or disbanding the police have traditionally called for stricter gun control too. If they get their way it would be worse than the wild west, because only the lawless would be fully armed.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by gawaintheknight

Sure, because all the European countries with stricter gun control laws, to say nothing of Japan, Canada, New Zealand or Australia, have much higher murder rates than the United States. Everyone knows that, right?

Criminals do not obey gun laws. Can you understand that if someone will kill another person, they are not going to respect laws that tell them they can't have their gun? For that matter, can you understand such a person is also not going to pay attention to a paper sign on a door that says "Guns not allowed?"

It is incredibly naive to think we can be just like Europe if only we can pass more gun laws. Law abiding people, by definition, obey such laws. Law breakers, by definition, do not. So liberals would have increased restrictions on law abiding people being able to defend themselves, they would weaken law enforcement, while criminals would sit there with big grins on their faces. So much easier to rob, beat, and steal from people when liberals have rendered them utterly defenseless.

18 murders in Chicago just this weekend. Do you really think a few more gun control laws would've prompted those murderers to stop, reconsider, and turn in their weapons instead?

[gawaintheknight]

I do not think that "we can be just like Europe if only we can pass more gun laws." I was responding to the argument that stricter gun control would make America like the Wild West by showing that other countries manage to have both strict gun control and much lower homicide rates among both the police and the general public. We would obviously need to transform our society in a lot of other ways too.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Criminals do not obey gun laws. Can you understand that if someone will kill another person, they are not going to respect laws that tell them they can't have their gun? For that matter, can you understand such a person is also not going to pay attention to a paper sign on a door that says "Guns not allowed?"

It is incredibly naive to think we can be just like Europe if only we can pass more gun laws. Law abiding people, by definition, obey such laws. Law breakers, by definition, do not. So liberals would have increased restrictions on law abiding people being able to defend themselves, they would weaken law enforcement, while criminals would sit there with big grins on their faces. So much easier to rob, beat, and steal from people when liberals have rendered them utterly defenseless.

18 murders in Chicago just this weekend. Do you really think a few more gun control laws would've prompted those murderers to stop, reconsider, and turn in their weapons instead?

[gawaintheknight]

Is it your position that gun laws are the only laws criminals don't obey? Because if your point is that criminals don't obey laws, it would seem to follow that we should not bother passing laws against murder, robbery, arson, jaywalking, etc. because criminals won't obey those either. And the same political party that argues that we can't stop gun ownership with laws seems to think that we can stop drug use and abortions with laws, although that may not be your position.

Also, there are many many cases of people who were not previously criminals committing offenses with guns - for example, roommates who have never committed crimes start to argue, the argument escalates, the gun is right there and someone ends up dead. Or people get drunk and someone decides to mess around with a gun - "don't worry, it isn't loaded" - and someone gets shot. Someone forgets to lock a drawer and their child finds their gun and tragedy happens. Many suicides happen because there's a gun that's handy and it seems like a fast and easy way out. None of these people were criminals before the gun was fired. Some of those people would find other weapons - less deadly ones - but not all of them, and the consequences would be less severe. If the gun isn't there, things end differently.

But I acknowledge that this is a pointless argument on my part because over the course of the last few decades the country has been flooded by guns and I don't think there's any realistic way to do anything about that now. We as a society have decided to accept school shootings and mass murders and serial killers in exchange for the "freedom" everyone has to get access to weapons. When Sandy Hook happened and nothing was done I gave up hope for change.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Criminals do not obey gun laws. Can you understand that if someone will kill another person, they are not going to respect laws that tell them they can't have their gun? For that matter, can you understand such a person is also not going to pay attention to a paper sign on a door that says "Guns not allowed?"

It is incredibly naive to think we can be just like Europe if only we can pass more gun laws. Law abiding people, by definition, obey such laws. Law breakers, by definition, do not. So liberals would have increased restrictions on law abiding people being able to defend themselves, they would weaken law enforcement, while criminals would sit there with big grins on their faces. So much easier to rob, beat, and steal from people when liberals have rendered them utterly defenseless.

18 murders in Chicago just this weekend. Do you really think a few more gun control laws would've prompted those murderers to stop, reconsider, and turn in their weapons instead?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by gawaintheknight

Is it your position that gun laws are the only laws criminals don't obey? Because if your point is that criminals don't obey laws, it would seem to follow that we should not bother passing laws against murder, robbery, arson, jaywalking, etc. because criminals won't obey those either. And the same political party that argues that we can't stop gun ownership with laws seems to think that we can stop drug use and abortions with laws, although that may not be your position.

Also, there are many many cases of people who were not previously criminals committing offenses with guns - for example, roommates who have never committed crimes start to argue, the argument escalates, the gun is right there and someone ends up dead. Or people get drunk and someone decides to mess around with a gun - "don't worry, it isn't loaded" - and someone gets shot. Someone forgets to lock a drawer and their child finds their gun and tragedy happens. Many suicides happen because there's a gun that's handy and it seems like a fast and easy way out. None of these people were criminals before the gun was fired. Some of those people would find other weapons - less deadly ones - but not all of them, and the consequences would be less severe. If the gun isn't there, things end differently.

But I acknowledge that this is a pointless argument on my part because over the course of the last few decades the country has been flooded by guns and I don't think there's any realistic way to do anything about that now. We as a society have decided to accept school shootings and mass murders and serial killers in exchange for the "freedom" everyone has to get access to weapons. When Sandy Hook happened and nothing was done I gave up hope for change.

right if protests were not happening there may not have been rioting...stores were just there.. and also people died, people will also die from Covid. Everything comes with costs. People want their 'freedom' on both sides of the aisle it appears. I believe more people are going to die from covid stemming from spread from protestors then the number of kids killed by guns...we will see

Giving up certain freedoms for non criminals to give up their guns comes with a cost. Its a not free lunch

you do know that you are just as likely to die from a stab wound then gunshot..crazy people can shoot people, they can also poison us in mass or send bombs in mail, crash vehicles..plug one hole with your finger, 2 more holes burst out.

can make it a bigger crime to have wrongful gun ownership and to the illegal sales of arms or wrongful sales...i would start there

[packs]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

If you really want to see what a lawless society looks like, read a history book. The Wild West already happened. I don't recommend repeating it, but what do I know.

The point he's been making over and over again is that this isn't a call to disband the police. It's a call to defund them. He has given you ample links to look over if you're confused about the intentions.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

The point he's been making over and over again is that this isn't a call to disband the police. It's a call to defund them. He has given you ample links to look over if you're confused about the intentions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneap...ce-department/

Minneapolis City Council members say they plan to vote to disband city's police department

June 9, 2020 / 8:10 AM / CBS News

On Sunday afternoon, hundreds of people rallied at a Minneapolis park to call for more changes to the city's police department. Nine out of 13 Minneapolis City Council members stood up on the stage to announce their intent to disband the city's police department, CBS Minnesota reports.

The announcement comes after council president Lisa Bender and member Jeremiah Ellison tweeted last week that they plan to dismantle the police department.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneap...ce-department/

Minneapolis City Council members say they plan to vote to disband city's police department

June 9, 2020 / 8:10 AM / CBS News

On Sunday afternoon, hundreds of people rallied at a Minneapolis park to call for more changes to the city's police department. Nine out of 13 Minneapolis City Council members stood up on the stage to announce their intent to disband the city's police department, CBS Minnesota reports.

The announcement comes after council president Lisa Bender and member Jeremiah Ellison tweeted last week that they plan to dismantle the police department.

Yes, well you should do yourself a favor and read a corresponding article about the Camden police department. Again, disbanding a department does not mean eliminating a police force. It means replacing it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

Yes, well you should do yourself a favor and read a corresponding article about the Camden police department. Again, disbanding a department does not mean eliminating a police force. It means replacing it.

I don't live in Camden, I live near Minneapolis. Maybe the English language has changed. I had thought "disband" meant "disband", and that "dismantle" meant "dismantle."

Maybe they'll replace it with a team of unarmed social workers or something, I don't know.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I don't live in Camden, I live near Minneapolis. Maybe the English language has changed. I had thought "disband" meant "disband", and that "dismantle" meant "dismantle."

Maybe they'll replace it with a team of unarmed social workers or something, I don't know.

You could click some of the links that have been provided. They go into details about everything you have questions about.

Camden is a town in New Jersey that disbanded and replaced its police department. It is the standard for "defunding the police" and what the process looks like.

[gawaintheknight]

Yes, I agree that that phrase would seem to promise something that the people using it aren't actually going to deliver. It's like "Make America Great Again" that way. But no one that anyone really takes seriously is proposing to get rid of police altogether.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I don't live in Camden, I live near Minneapolis. Maybe the English language has changed. I had thought "disband" meant "disband", and that "dismantle" meant "dismantle."

Maybe they'll replace it with a team of unarmed social workers or something, I don't know.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

The point he's been making over and over again is that this isn't a call to disband the police. It's a call to defund them. He has given you ample links to look over if you're confused about the intentions.

right we know its to lesson funding for the most part ...but again, my point was you can take money from somewhere else .

body cams seem to work...would you want 30k a year officers working for your town or 60k a year ones...you pay for what you get...

body cams seemed like a good idea...it takes a lot of time and money to prosecute criminals.... cant just say defund the police without also addressing the court system...going to have to defund the court system..what about public defenders, we defund them too?

[gawaintheknight]

Actually it's not clear that body cams work:

https://news.yale.edu/2017/10/27/do-...or-not-so-much

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right we know its to lesson funding for the most part ...but again, my point was you can take money from somewhere else .

body cams seem to work...would you want 30k a year officers working for your town or 60k a year ones...you pay for what you get...

body cams seemed like a good idea...it takes a lot of time and money to prosecute criminals.... cant just say defund the police without also addressing the court system...going to have to defund the court system..what about public defenders, we defund them too?

[packs]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right we know its to lesson funding for the most part ...but again, my point was you can take money from somewhere else .

body cams seem to work...would you want 30k a year officers working for your town or 60k a year ones...you pay for what you get...

body cams seemed like a good idea...it takes a lot of time and money to prosecute criminals.... cant just say defund the police without also addressing the court system...going to have to defund the court system..what about public defenders, we defund them too?

Why do you keep bringing up reducing funding from other sources when the issue is police enforcement? How is it logical for a community to reduce funding from something like community development so they can combat lost trust with the police department?