So who's gonna protect you?
So who's gonna protect you?
Paula wrote: You Brat!~ we Have A Girl Scout Leader Here!So, one person is funny while I am a brat??? Hmmm...double standards, too....
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
So who's gonna protect you?
Paula wrote: MIcheal Ross is a Serial Killer to be put to sleep, 1/26/05.
Thanks. Not familiar with his story but it sounds as if you were in the right place at the right time... you're still alive.
I guess, also, that your spider sense was tingling. Glad to hear it.
Both my daughters were in Brownies and Guides. Good people.
Thanks. Not familiar with his story but it sounds as if you were in the right place at the right time... you're still alive.
I guess, also, that your spider sense was tingling. Glad to hear it.
Both my daughters were in Brownies and Guides. Good people.
So who's gonna protect you?
BabyRider wrote: So, one person is funny while I am a brat??? Hmmm...double standards, too....
Heh, heh, heh. Ha ha.
Your message (Paula) was a little run-on, but clarifiable.
More a misunderstanding as opposed to a double standard?
Heh, heh, heh. Ha ha.
Your message (Paula) was a little run-on, but clarifiable.
More a misunderstanding as opposed to a double standard?
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote:
More a misunderstanding as opposed to a double standard?
She knows what I mean...Where's Bullet when you need him???
More a misunderstanding as opposed to a double standard?
She knows what I mean...Where's Bullet when you need him???
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
So who's gonna protect you?
BabyRider wrote: She knows what I mean...Where's Bullet when you need him???
Ye know she could lose her job and standing? I ain't throwin' any stones when it comes to drinking or not drinking!
:-5 Other than being a run-on sentence... ?
Ye know she could lose her job and standing? I ain't throwin' any stones when it comes to drinking or not drinking!
:-5 Other than being a run-on sentence... ?
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote: From my take on this the storeowner could have kept himself out of trouble if he had put a sign where the electrified bars were by stating that they were electrified? Death in the commission of a non-violent crime is wrong.
And the same for the dog owner had he posted a beware of the dog sign?
I'm asking. Not stating.
Gotta be careful posting Beware of Dog signs. In some places that can be
an admission that you knew your dog was dangerous and can open you
up to lawsuits.
I myself come from a family with many law enforcement officers. My little
brother a few years ago got into another line of work, thank goodness.
I was very proud of him as a cop, but hate to think if he had to protect
someone's safety and then lost his life.
I would like to think I can protect myself, but you don't know. Now that
I am without my 70 pound protective german shepherd dog on my
morning walks, I carry a canister of OC. That way, if someone gets it
away from me, I'll just be a little weepy for a bit! I can't get a CCW
and there is always the chance the bad guy could take a weapon
from me anyway.
I also rely pretty heavily on my senses, and not engaging with people.
"What time is it?" is unfortunately used to distract people sometimes!
And the same for the dog owner had he posted a beware of the dog sign?
I'm asking. Not stating.
Gotta be careful posting Beware of Dog signs. In some places that can be
an admission that you knew your dog was dangerous and can open you
up to lawsuits.
I myself come from a family with many law enforcement officers. My little
brother a few years ago got into another line of work, thank goodness.
I was very proud of him as a cop, but hate to think if he had to protect
someone's safety and then lost his life.
I would like to think I can protect myself, but you don't know. Now that
I am without my 70 pound protective german shepherd dog on my
morning walks, I carry a canister of OC. That way, if someone gets it
away from me, I'll just be a little weepy for a bit! I can't get a CCW
and there is always the chance the bad guy could take a weapon
from me anyway.
I also rely pretty heavily on my senses, and not engaging with people.
"What time is it?" is unfortunately used to distract people sometimes!
So who's gonna protect you?
valerie wrote: Gotta be careful posting Beware of Dog signs. In some places that can be
an admission that you knew your dog was dangerous and can open you
up to lawsuits.
Yes, but would that apply to someone that had broken into your home? If he broke into your home knowing that there was a dog there wouldn't it be his fault, that is to say, wouldn't it be like teasing the dog and then getting bitten?
an admission that you knew your dog was dangerous and can open you
up to lawsuits.
Yes, but would that apply to someone that had broken into your home? If he broke into your home knowing that there was a dog there wouldn't it be his fault, that is to say, wouldn't it be like teasing the dog and then getting bitten?
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote: Yes, but would that apply to someone that had broken into your home? If he broke into your home knowing that there was a dog there wouldn't it be his fault, that is to say, wouldn't it be like teasing the dog and then getting bitten?Unfortunately Valarie is correct. The dog represents deadly force, and you failed to control it. The fact that the bad guy triggered the dog's action is irrelavent in a legal action for damages.
This is really an issue that begs for legal uniformity, not only is the law different between states, but also between local jurisdictions. Additionaly, judges, juries, and the investigating officers all have their own biases.
Valarie's use of OC is a great idea, but outlawed in some places, and of course anything that could help you is banned on planes, meaning that in the airport parking area, you are fair game for thugs. Val, then made a very important point,
"I also rely pretty heavily on my senses, and not engaging with people.
"What time is it?" is unfortunately used to distract people sometimes!"
The bottom line is that not only are the police not obliged to help you, but it seems often that the laws are against you as well. That is the problem with outlawing "things" instead of bad behavior.
Actually the best defensive "weapon" is between your ears. If you can't have a gun, get a dog, -no dog, carry an aerosol, -no pepperspray, alcohol based aerosols are really hard on the eyes, take a self defense course, just don't set yourself up to be a victim.
When I was doing a lot of business flying, I'd sometimes come in late and have to walk yhrough dark areas to transportation, I faked a limp and carried a nice hickory cane.
As I posted earlier; I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6.:yh_mean :yh_wait
This is really an issue that begs for legal uniformity, not only is the law different between states, but also between local jurisdictions. Additionaly, judges, juries, and the investigating officers all have their own biases.
Valarie's use of OC is a great idea, but outlawed in some places, and of course anything that could help you is banned on planes, meaning that in the airport parking area, you are fair game for thugs. Val, then made a very important point,
"I also rely pretty heavily on my senses, and not engaging with people.
"What time is it?" is unfortunately used to distract people sometimes!"
The bottom line is that not only are the police not obliged to help you, but it seems often that the laws are against you as well. That is the problem with outlawing "things" instead of bad behavior.
Actually the best defensive "weapon" is between your ears. If you can't have a gun, get a dog, -no dog, carry an aerosol, -no pepperspray, alcohol based aerosols are really hard on the eyes, take a self defense course, just don't set yourself up to be a victim.
When I was doing a lot of business flying, I'd sometimes come in late and have to walk yhrough dark areas to transportation, I faked a limp and carried a nice hickory cane.
As I posted earlier; I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6.:yh_mean :yh_wait
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill 
So who's gonna protect you?
I read earlier, how Ken thought that bikers, hoods, mafioso, thugs and crackdealers had guns. Being a biker, and living in Detroit, I tend to agree. That being the fact, how are you going to protect your self from them? Most bikers are harmless and lead legitimate lives, some do not, I am familier with both. But hoods thugs and crackheads are a different story. Let's say that you and your family are home and asleep and are awakened by an armed burglar on drugs. What are you going to do with your hockey stick? He'll shoot your dog. He's on drugs and doesn't care. He's a criminal, he does not care about gun laws.
Some one said the best defense is between your ears. This is sooo true. Is your home an easy target? Do your bushes provide cover for a prowler? Does your sliding glass door have push AND lift protection? Do you have dead bolts at least an inch and a half long? Do you have an alarm system? Is your charged cell phone by the bed? Does your family have an emergency plan for every contingency?
Are you a target when your out? Are you aware of your suroundings and who is around you? Do you blindly walk past dark door openings and corners? Do you park under a street lamp to help illuminate the area? Do you check under your car as you approach it? Do you check the back seat through the window before you get in? Do you make eye contact with people looking at you? Do you walk with your head up?
I am going to start a gun thread. See you all there.
Some one said the best defense is between your ears. This is sooo true. Is your home an easy target? Do your bushes provide cover for a prowler? Does your sliding glass door have push AND lift protection? Do you have dead bolts at least an inch and a half long? Do you have an alarm system? Is your charged cell phone by the bed? Does your family have an emergency plan for every contingency?
Are you a target when your out? Are you aware of your suroundings and who is around you? Do you blindly walk past dark door openings and corners? Do you park under a street lamp to help illuminate the area? Do you check under your car as you approach it? Do you check the back seat through the window before you get in? Do you make eye contact with people looking at you? Do you walk with your head up?
I am going to start a gun thread. See you all there.
Death is more universal than life. For although everyone dies, not everyone truly lives.
So who's gonna protect you?
Bullet....EXCELLENT points on how to be safe. There's so many things to consider when thinking of protection. I think it was Ladycop who said, "If you look vulnerable, then you are." Your tips here on how not to LOOK vulnerable should be practiced by everyone. Great questions.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
So who's gonna protect you?
Bullet wrote: Let's say that you and your family are home and asleep and are awakened by an armed burglar on drugs. What are you going to do with your hockey stick?
I guess that being a Canadian puts you at risk.
Years ago I used to run the merry-go-round on the Santa Monica pier in California. One afternoon some guy came up to me and told me to hand over the cash box. He said he had a gun. And to move!
We headed to where the cash was.
I looked at him, smiled, looked at the cash box intimating to him that there it is. He took his eyes and attention off me as he started to remove the box. I grabbed the club (akin to hockey stick) off the wall and in the same motion smacked him up side the head. They took him away in an ambulance. Not a happy camper when I saw him in court.
I reacted. Some will say it was right and some will say it was wrong. The fact is people with guns are on a power trip and because they are on power trips they think that they have everything in control and you are going to do as they say.
It's that split second that undoes them. That is when the stuff between the ears comes into play. I don't advise anyone to do this unless they have faith that they are going to be able to pull it off. He had the drop on me but he was looking elsewhere (probably dreaming about where he was going to spend the cash) and I caught him on it.
Unless the gun user is a hitman whose job it is to kill you, then there is always the opportunity that he will look away while he is looking over his new found property. A nice looking flute can leave a hell of a dent in your skull if there is enough force behind it. Soap stone can crush your skull. Everyday things around the house can be formidable weapons.
But, then again, I am in Canada and the chances of a drug=crazed criminal with a gun being in my home is from slim to nil. That is only because they are expensive to own. Those that do own them are usually a little further up the food chain and are not living lives of destitution and desperation.
In Canada, unlike the States, if you are in need there are government social agencies that will help. God only knows how many lives have been saved by having the potential destitute people being able to feed and house themselves without having to resort to stealing and killing in order to survive. This is not a condemnation of America but it should give pause to think about people as humans with the need to clothe, house and feed themselves and their families.
If you are in Canada and in need, you will be helped. You can whine about the odd person that will abuse the system, but if one life is saved then it ought to even things out because that dead statistic could be you. We all know about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If, as in America, anyone and everyone has a gun then the circumstances and the probability of confronting a drug-crazed criminal are more apt to happen. This is but one of a series of differences between Canada and America.
I guess that being a Canadian puts you at risk.
Years ago I used to run the merry-go-round on the Santa Monica pier in California. One afternoon some guy came up to me and told me to hand over the cash box. He said he had a gun. And to move!
We headed to where the cash was.
I looked at him, smiled, looked at the cash box intimating to him that there it is. He took his eyes and attention off me as he started to remove the box. I grabbed the club (akin to hockey stick) off the wall and in the same motion smacked him up side the head. They took him away in an ambulance. Not a happy camper when I saw him in court.
I reacted. Some will say it was right and some will say it was wrong. The fact is people with guns are on a power trip and because they are on power trips they think that they have everything in control and you are going to do as they say.
It's that split second that undoes them. That is when the stuff between the ears comes into play. I don't advise anyone to do this unless they have faith that they are going to be able to pull it off. He had the drop on me but he was looking elsewhere (probably dreaming about where he was going to spend the cash) and I caught him on it.
Unless the gun user is a hitman whose job it is to kill you, then there is always the opportunity that he will look away while he is looking over his new found property. A nice looking flute can leave a hell of a dent in your skull if there is enough force behind it. Soap stone can crush your skull. Everyday things around the house can be formidable weapons.
But, then again, I am in Canada and the chances of a drug=crazed criminal with a gun being in my home is from slim to nil. That is only because they are expensive to own. Those that do own them are usually a little further up the food chain and are not living lives of destitution and desperation.
In Canada, unlike the States, if you are in need there are government social agencies that will help. God only knows how many lives have been saved by having the potential destitute people being able to feed and house themselves without having to resort to stealing and killing in order to survive. This is not a condemnation of America but it should give pause to think about people as humans with the need to clothe, house and feed themselves and their families.
If you are in Canada and in need, you will be helped. You can whine about the odd person that will abuse the system, but if one life is saved then it ought to even things out because that dead statistic could be you. We all know about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If, as in America, anyone and everyone has a gun then the circumstances and the probability of confronting a drug-crazed criminal are more apt to happen. This is but one of a series of differences between Canada and America.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote: The fact is people with guns are on a power trip and because they are on power trips they think that they have everything in control and you are going to do as they say.
do you mean 'people', or do you mean 'criminals'? i'm people, and i'm not on a power trip.
In Canada, unlike the States, if you are in need there are government social agencies that will help.
i beg your pardon?!? that's patently false on it's face. heck, i'd wager that the U.S.'s spending on social programs probably exceeds canada's gross domestic product.
there is a massive infrastructure of both private and public assistance for those in need, here in the U.S..
God only knows how many lives have been saved by having the potential destitute people being able to feed and house themselves without having to resort to stealing and killing in order to survive. This is not a condemnation of America but it should give pause to think about people as humans with the need to clothe, house and feed themselves and their families.
damning with faint praise. it *is* a condemnation of the U.S.. You're implying that somehow canada magically feeds and clothes all of it's citizens, but the US doesn't. That's pretty offensive.
further, your premise that people who are destitute and without food or shelter are the ones who commit crimes is faulty. as you suggested - possibly, i'm again confounded by 'people' rather than 'criminals' above - it isn't need that drives crime, it's power. rape isn't about sex. most violent crime isn't about food or shelter.
If you are in Canada and in need, you will be helped.
as here in the U.S.
You can whine about the odd person that will abuse the system, but if one life is saved then it ought to even things out because that dead statistic could be you. We all know about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
the 'if it saves just one life' argument is specious. at what cost? seriously? if someone had a disease, and the treatment for that disease would cost one million dollars per year, should society bear that cost? if only to save that one life? what if the cost were one billion? at what threshold would you say 'saving that one life will cost the quality of life of too many other people'?
If, as in America, anyone and everyone has a gun then the circumstances and the probability of confronting a drug-crazed criminal are more apt to happen. This is but one of a series of differences between Canada and America.
yes, most notably that they are two different countries.
the number of guns in the US continues to go up. our violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for ten years. the UK banned virtually all gun ownership in the mid 1990's, and their homicide rates continue to climb.
different countries, different societies, different laws, different cultures, different problems, different solutions.
do you mean 'people', or do you mean 'criminals'? i'm people, and i'm not on a power trip.
In Canada, unlike the States, if you are in need there are government social agencies that will help.
i beg your pardon?!? that's patently false on it's face. heck, i'd wager that the U.S.'s spending on social programs probably exceeds canada's gross domestic product.
there is a massive infrastructure of both private and public assistance for those in need, here in the U.S..
God only knows how many lives have been saved by having the potential destitute people being able to feed and house themselves without having to resort to stealing and killing in order to survive. This is not a condemnation of America but it should give pause to think about people as humans with the need to clothe, house and feed themselves and their families.
damning with faint praise. it *is* a condemnation of the U.S.. You're implying that somehow canada magically feeds and clothes all of it's citizens, but the US doesn't. That's pretty offensive.
further, your premise that people who are destitute and without food or shelter are the ones who commit crimes is faulty. as you suggested - possibly, i'm again confounded by 'people' rather than 'criminals' above - it isn't need that drives crime, it's power. rape isn't about sex. most violent crime isn't about food or shelter.
If you are in Canada and in need, you will be helped.
as here in the U.S.
You can whine about the odd person that will abuse the system, but if one life is saved then it ought to even things out because that dead statistic could be you. We all know about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
the 'if it saves just one life' argument is specious. at what cost? seriously? if someone had a disease, and the treatment for that disease would cost one million dollars per year, should society bear that cost? if only to save that one life? what if the cost were one billion? at what threshold would you say 'saving that one life will cost the quality of life of too many other people'?
If, as in America, anyone and everyone has a gun then the circumstances and the probability of confronting a drug-crazed criminal are more apt to happen. This is but one of a series of differences between Canada and America.
yes, most notably that they are two different countries.
the number of guns in the US continues to go up. our violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for ten years. the UK banned virtually all gun ownership in the mid 1990's, and their homicide rates continue to climb.
different countries, different societies, different laws, different cultures, different problems, different solutions.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
So who's gonna protect you?
anastrophe wrote: do you mean 'people', or do you mean 'criminals'? i'm people, and i'm not on a power trip.
>
i beg your pardon?!? that's patently false on it's face. heck, i'd wager that the U.S.'s spending on social programs probably exceeds canada's gross domestic product.
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/h ... ecords.asp )
you'll see that our form of social aid does not discriminate against people. If there is anything that is specious it is your self-serving criticism.>>
there is a massive infrastructure of both private and public assistance for those in need, here in the U.S.. damning with faint praise. it *is* a condemnation of the U.S.. You're implying that somehow canada magically feeds and clothes all of it's citizens, but the US doesn't. That's pretty offensive.[/QUOTE}
>
[QUOTE]further, your premise that people who are destitute and without food or shelter are the ones who commit crimes is faulty. as you suggested - possibly, i'm again confounded by 'people' rather than 'criminals' above - it isn't need that drives crime, it's power. rape isn't about sex. most violent crime isn't about food or shelter.
>
as here in the U.S.
>
the 'if it saves just one life' argument is specious. at what cost? seriously? if someone had a disease, and the treatment for that disease would cost one million dollars per year, should society bear that cost? if only to save that one life? what if the cost were one billion? at what threshold would you say 'saving that one life will cost the quality of life of too many other people'?
>
yes, most notably that they are two different countries.
>
the number of guns in the US continues to go up. our violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for ten years. the UK banned virtually all gun ownership in the mid 1990's, and their homicide rates continue to climb.
>
different countries, different societies, different laws, different cultures, different problems, different solutions.
I agree.
My problem was that I closed both quotes. Doh!
>
i beg your pardon?!? that's patently false on it's face. heck, i'd wager that the U.S.'s spending on social programs probably exceeds canada's gross domestic product.
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/h ... ecords.asp )
you'll see that our form of social aid does not discriminate against people. If there is anything that is specious it is your self-serving criticism.>>
there is a massive infrastructure of both private and public assistance for those in need, here in the U.S.. damning with faint praise. it *is* a condemnation of the U.S.. You're implying that somehow canada magically feeds and clothes all of it's citizens, but the US doesn't. That's pretty offensive.[/QUOTE}
>
[QUOTE]further, your premise that people who are destitute and without food or shelter are the ones who commit crimes is faulty. as you suggested - possibly, i'm again confounded by 'people' rather than 'criminals' above - it isn't need that drives crime, it's power. rape isn't about sex. most violent crime isn't about food or shelter.
>
as here in the U.S.
>
the 'if it saves just one life' argument is specious. at what cost? seriously? if someone had a disease, and the treatment for that disease would cost one million dollars per year, should society bear that cost? if only to save that one life? what if the cost were one billion? at what threshold would you say 'saving that one life will cost the quality of life of too many other people'?
>
yes, most notably that they are two different countries.
>
the number of guns in the US continues to go up. our violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for ten years. the UK banned virtually all gun ownership in the mid 1990's, and their homicide rates continue to climb.
>
different countries, different societies, different laws, different cultures, different problems, different solutions.
I agree.
My problem was that I closed both quotes. Doh!
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
your quoting is badly messed up. before i reply, could you fix it please? it's a mishmash that i can barely make heads or tails of currently.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
to further clarify, to quote text you begin with the following (take out the spaces - can't write it without them or the editor will interpret it as an actual quote)
[ q u o t e ]
and close it with
[ / q u o t e ]
what you've done in your post is both open and close with [ / q u o t e ]
[ q u o t e ]
and close it with
[ / q u o t e ]
what you've done in your post is both open and close with [ / q u o t e ]
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
well, i guess i'll take a stab at it, and correct the quoting as best i can.
kensloft wrote: We, in Canada, do not keep people neatly stereotyped as criminals.evasive. classifying someone who commits crimes as a criminal is not stereotyping. people who harm innocent people are criminals.
"Did it once they'll probably do it again", doesn't wash.i agree. however, 'did it thrice they'll probably do it again' does wash. and since the vast, overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by repeat, violent offenders, i have no problem with locking them up and throwing away the key - or at least, locking them up until they are rehabilitated, rather than locking them up based upon some arbitrary formula of years served minus 'good behavior'. you kill an innocent person, you pay the price.
People with guns in their hands during emotional moments are irrational and on a power trip. that's dandy, but that's not what you said, nor what i was questioning.
I did not say that people with guns are on a power trip. You have taken what I said and, defensively, put it out of context.>> ahem. sorry, but this is absurd. i quote the post i quoted:
kensloft wrote:
The fact is people with guns are on a power trip and because they are on power trips they think that they have everything in control and you are going to do as they say. now, are you seriously trying to tell me with a straight face that you did not say 'the fact is people with guns are on a power trip'?
Considering that you are ten times as big as we are population wise then there is a possibility that your budget is larger than our measley 186 billion per year. Nonetheless, if you look at the link, http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/h ... ecords.asp )
you'll see that our form of social aid does not discriminate against people. If there is anything that is specious it is your self-serving criticism. okay. you've said that canada's social aid doesn't discriminate. a rather broad term - does it discriminate against dead people? animals? rocks? can a rock apply for aid? discrimination in and of itself is value neutral. if the reasons for discrimination are based upon age, race, gender, religion, etc, then it is clearly wrong, and our social aid makes no discrimination on that basis either. criminals, however, do not have the same rights as non-criminals. this is a very basic, ancient concept. those who prey on innocents do not have conferred upon them equal rights and equal standing within civilized society, and for good reason. things become less black and white when dealing with *ex* offenders. ex-offenders do indeed have a greater likelyhood of committing crimes. that does not mean that they *will* commit further crimes; only that statistically, the likelyhood is very close to 1:1. because of that statistical likelyhood, it is in society's best interest to be particularly watchful of those who have committed offenses in the past. the most watchful response is a little thing known as "prison". we have prisons precisely for this reason - we take away the criminal's access to society at large, so that they cannot prey upon innocents. because most prisons - here and elsewhere - do little in the way of affirmative rehabilitation, releasing prisoners after a set amount of time is little more than a gamble. more often than not, prison was simply 'basic training' for more advanced crimes once released.
to wit: in our local news yesterday - a 60 year old man took two teenage boys hostage - they were walking down the sidewalk, he pressed something in the older boy's back that felt like a gun, and told the two to come with him or he'd kill them. the boys complied, but as they walked further and further into a deserted area, one of the boys bolted, and flagged down a car - that happened to be driven by a S.W.A.T. officer on his way back from a day of training! police arrived nearly immediately, surrounded the man, and there was a standoff. at one moment, the man moved such that two snipers were able to fire upon him and kill him.
the man? released from prison eleven days previous. his crimes? violent, aggravated assaults.
while this is a rather dramatic example, similar offenses are repeated altogether too frequently.
>now you're playing further games. please provide a citation where i suggested they were 'subhuman'. violent criminals are all too human - the dark side of humanity.
criminals are labeled as such for a *reason*. it is not simply tossed out at random - 'you sir, you are a criminal, you over there, you are not'. there is a *reason* they are called criminals and it is because they have preyed upon those who are *not* criminals. this is such a basic concept, it's sad i have to spell it out.
now, let's be clear. i'm not talking about a hungry kid who steals a loaf of bread from a store. that's a crime, but it's a crime against property, and is not in the same class as a crime against the person. violent crime is what i'm referencing, and that should be obvious both by the scope and path of this thread heretofore, and by my own statements on the matter. sadly, you appear to be conflating any and all crime with the sort of crime this thread has been concerned with, violent crime and the threat of same. i generally consider such a broadening of terms for the sake of condemnation to be less than honest. but whatever.
anastrophe wrote: further, your premise that people who are destitute and without food or shelter are the ones who commit crimes is faulty. as you suggested - possibly, i'm again confounded by 'people' rather than 'criminals' above - it isn't need that drives crime, it's power. rape isn't about sex. most violent crime isn't about food or shelter.kensloft wrote: Where is your proof of this premise that people without food or shelter are not the ones that commit crimes? okay, basic rhetoric and logic 101 here: when one states that a premise is faulty, it is stating that the premise is flawed, not that it is false. therefore, 'proof' to the contrary is neither required nor even desired, since it is a non sequitur.
**more often than not**, if i must qualify what seemed a clear statement, those who commit violent crimes do so for reasons other than need.
I will grant you that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans do not fall into crime but there are those that do and statistically they come from these social strata.posit:
the overwhelming majority of criminals wear shoes while they commit their crimes, statistically. therefore, shoes are a cause of crime.
posit:
the overwhelming majority of americans do not fall into violent crime; those who do however, statistically, are likely to have been sexually molested by a relative in their childhood. therefore, sexual molestation causes crime.
posit:
the overwhelming majority of those who grow up in poverty do _not_ live a life of crime, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them are honest, hardworking citizens like 'everyone else'. therefore, poverty is not an obvious indicator of the propensity for committing crime.
There are three classes of people in the states. Those with money. Those that are working to be with money. And criminals.there are three classes of people in the states. those with a formal education. those without a formal education. and those who don't need one.
there are three classes of people in canada. those who live in cold areas. those who live in temperate areas. and those who are dead.
there are three classes of people in italy. those who speak italian. those who are multilingual. and those who are under the age of one and who don't speak yet.
there are two types of people in this world: those who believe there are two types of people in this world, and those who know better.
paul wrote: the 'if it saves just one life' argument is specious. at what cost? seriously? if someone had a disease, and the treatment for that disease would cost one million dollars per year, should society bear that cost? if only to save that one life? what if the cost were one billion? at what threshold would you say 'saving that one life will cost the quality of life of too many other people'? kensloft wrote: Seriously, we have a medicare system that gets rid of the silly questions that you pose in this diatribe! i see that you are unwilling to confront the actual questions posed. so, your medicare system would pay a billion dollars a year to keep one person alive? what if they were in a vegetative state, would medicare decide that saving that one person wasn't worth it?
we have a massive medicare system in the U.S. too. many other countries do to. their existence in no way invalidates these 'silly questions'. these are very important questions in fact. they determine the thresholds we decide upon that determine life or death for those who are ill, and determine the quality of life for those who are not. 'social aid' or 'social welfare' is 'socialism'. very limited socialism is what we have in the united states. less limited socialism obtains in canada. frankly, the more socialism, the less social progress, in my opinion. when anyone can suck at the teat of the taxpayer's wallet, the incentive to succeed, to innovate, to do good works, dies.
but that's just my little pet peeve.
What is being said, from the Canadian perspective, is that you have to take care of everybody that needs help. everybody? wow. so no matter the cost, no matter who it is in need or the reason they are in need, they will get help from the canadian government? great. i think i'll move there and go on welfare. why bother working when the government will bankrupt those who are willing to work in order to keep those who don't fat and sassy!
In the land of the American Constitution you seem to have removed the "everybody" and replaced it with the "everybody except" notion.so, if somebody murders someone in canada, they aren't arrested? no trial, no prison time? all rights that law-abiding citizens enjoy confer upon even the most egregious violent criminals? i'm glad i don't live there.
It took 200 years to free the slaves from the colour of their skin. Your argument is specious and is meant to be inflammatory.my argument is specious and meant to be inflammatory, but bringing up slavery (hello? calling mr. non sequitur, non sequitur white courtesy telephone please!) is merely calm, dispassionate rhetoric. right.
anastrophe wrote: the number of guns in the US continues to go up. our violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for ten years. the UK banned virtually all gun ownership in the mid 1990's, and their homicide rates continue to climb.kensloft wrote: Everybody has been killing each other with guns and those ordinary citizens that are still alive feel that they need to protect themselves from this phenomenon. The criminals are starting to be out-gunned and know that they'll be dead if they don't get the drop on you. I would suggest that these are two reasons why the death rates are going down.the above is a joke, right? you don't seriously believe that do you?
kensloft wrote: We, in Canada, do not keep people neatly stereotyped as criminals.evasive. classifying someone who commits crimes as a criminal is not stereotyping. people who harm innocent people are criminals.
"Did it once they'll probably do it again", doesn't wash.i agree. however, 'did it thrice they'll probably do it again' does wash. and since the vast, overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by repeat, violent offenders, i have no problem with locking them up and throwing away the key - or at least, locking them up until they are rehabilitated, rather than locking them up based upon some arbitrary formula of years served minus 'good behavior'. you kill an innocent person, you pay the price.
People with guns in their hands during emotional moments are irrational and on a power trip. that's dandy, but that's not what you said, nor what i was questioning.
I did not say that people with guns are on a power trip. You have taken what I said and, defensively, put it out of context.>> ahem. sorry, but this is absurd. i quote the post i quoted:
kensloft wrote:
The fact is people with guns are on a power trip and because they are on power trips they think that they have everything in control and you are going to do as they say. now, are you seriously trying to tell me with a straight face that you did not say 'the fact is people with guns are on a power trip'?
Considering that you are ten times as big as we are population wise then there is a possibility that your budget is larger than our measley 186 billion per year. Nonetheless, if you look at the link, http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/h ... ecords.asp )
you'll see that our form of social aid does not discriminate against people. If there is anything that is specious it is your self-serving criticism. okay. you've said that canada's social aid doesn't discriminate. a rather broad term - does it discriminate against dead people? animals? rocks? can a rock apply for aid? discrimination in and of itself is value neutral. if the reasons for discrimination are based upon age, race, gender, religion, etc, then it is clearly wrong, and our social aid makes no discrimination on that basis either. criminals, however, do not have the same rights as non-criminals. this is a very basic, ancient concept. those who prey on innocents do not have conferred upon them equal rights and equal standing within civilized society, and for good reason. things become less black and white when dealing with *ex* offenders. ex-offenders do indeed have a greater likelyhood of committing crimes. that does not mean that they *will* commit further crimes; only that statistically, the likelyhood is very close to 1:1. because of that statistical likelyhood, it is in society's best interest to be particularly watchful of those who have committed offenses in the past. the most watchful response is a little thing known as "prison". we have prisons precisely for this reason - we take away the criminal's access to society at large, so that they cannot prey upon innocents. because most prisons - here and elsewhere - do little in the way of affirmative rehabilitation, releasing prisoners after a set amount of time is little more than a gamble. more often than not, prison was simply 'basic training' for more advanced crimes once released.
to wit: in our local news yesterday - a 60 year old man took two teenage boys hostage - they were walking down the sidewalk, he pressed something in the older boy's back that felt like a gun, and told the two to come with him or he'd kill them. the boys complied, but as they walked further and further into a deserted area, one of the boys bolted, and flagged down a car - that happened to be driven by a S.W.A.T. officer on his way back from a day of training! police arrived nearly immediately, surrounded the man, and there was a standoff. at one moment, the man moved such that two snipers were able to fire upon him and kill him.
the man? released from prison eleven days previous. his crimes? violent, aggravated assaults.
while this is a rather dramatic example, similar offenses are repeated altogether too frequently.
>now you're playing further games. please provide a citation where i suggested they were 'subhuman'. violent criminals are all too human - the dark side of humanity.
criminals are labeled as such for a *reason*. it is not simply tossed out at random - 'you sir, you are a criminal, you over there, you are not'. there is a *reason* they are called criminals and it is because they have preyed upon those who are *not* criminals. this is such a basic concept, it's sad i have to spell it out.
now, let's be clear. i'm not talking about a hungry kid who steals a loaf of bread from a store. that's a crime, but it's a crime against property, and is not in the same class as a crime against the person. violent crime is what i'm referencing, and that should be obvious both by the scope and path of this thread heretofore, and by my own statements on the matter. sadly, you appear to be conflating any and all crime with the sort of crime this thread has been concerned with, violent crime and the threat of same. i generally consider such a broadening of terms for the sake of condemnation to be less than honest. but whatever.
anastrophe wrote: further, your premise that people who are destitute and without food or shelter are the ones who commit crimes is faulty. as you suggested - possibly, i'm again confounded by 'people' rather than 'criminals' above - it isn't need that drives crime, it's power. rape isn't about sex. most violent crime isn't about food or shelter.kensloft wrote: Where is your proof of this premise that people without food or shelter are not the ones that commit crimes? okay, basic rhetoric and logic 101 here: when one states that a premise is faulty, it is stating that the premise is flawed, not that it is false. therefore, 'proof' to the contrary is neither required nor even desired, since it is a non sequitur.
**more often than not**, if i must qualify what seemed a clear statement, those who commit violent crimes do so for reasons other than need.
I will grant you that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans do not fall into crime but there are those that do and statistically they come from these social strata.posit:
the overwhelming majority of criminals wear shoes while they commit their crimes, statistically. therefore, shoes are a cause of crime.
posit:
the overwhelming majority of americans do not fall into violent crime; those who do however, statistically, are likely to have been sexually molested by a relative in their childhood. therefore, sexual molestation causes crime.
posit:
the overwhelming majority of those who grow up in poverty do _not_ live a life of crime, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them are honest, hardworking citizens like 'everyone else'. therefore, poverty is not an obvious indicator of the propensity for committing crime.
There are three classes of people in the states. Those with money. Those that are working to be with money. And criminals.there are three classes of people in the states. those with a formal education. those without a formal education. and those who don't need one.
there are three classes of people in canada. those who live in cold areas. those who live in temperate areas. and those who are dead.
there are three classes of people in italy. those who speak italian. those who are multilingual. and those who are under the age of one and who don't speak yet.
there are two types of people in this world: those who believe there are two types of people in this world, and those who know better.
paul wrote: the 'if it saves just one life' argument is specious. at what cost? seriously? if someone had a disease, and the treatment for that disease would cost one million dollars per year, should society bear that cost? if only to save that one life? what if the cost were one billion? at what threshold would you say 'saving that one life will cost the quality of life of too many other people'? kensloft wrote: Seriously, we have a medicare system that gets rid of the silly questions that you pose in this diatribe! i see that you are unwilling to confront the actual questions posed. so, your medicare system would pay a billion dollars a year to keep one person alive? what if they were in a vegetative state, would medicare decide that saving that one person wasn't worth it?
we have a massive medicare system in the U.S. too. many other countries do to. their existence in no way invalidates these 'silly questions'. these are very important questions in fact. they determine the thresholds we decide upon that determine life or death for those who are ill, and determine the quality of life for those who are not. 'social aid' or 'social welfare' is 'socialism'. very limited socialism is what we have in the united states. less limited socialism obtains in canada. frankly, the more socialism, the less social progress, in my opinion. when anyone can suck at the teat of the taxpayer's wallet, the incentive to succeed, to innovate, to do good works, dies.
but that's just my little pet peeve.
What is being said, from the Canadian perspective, is that you have to take care of everybody that needs help. everybody? wow. so no matter the cost, no matter who it is in need or the reason they are in need, they will get help from the canadian government? great. i think i'll move there and go on welfare. why bother working when the government will bankrupt those who are willing to work in order to keep those who don't fat and sassy!
In the land of the American Constitution you seem to have removed the "everybody" and replaced it with the "everybody except" notion.so, if somebody murders someone in canada, they aren't arrested? no trial, no prison time? all rights that law-abiding citizens enjoy confer upon even the most egregious violent criminals? i'm glad i don't live there.
It took 200 years to free the slaves from the colour of their skin. Your argument is specious and is meant to be inflammatory.my argument is specious and meant to be inflammatory, but bringing up slavery (hello? calling mr. non sequitur, non sequitur white courtesy telephone please!) is merely calm, dispassionate rhetoric. right.
anastrophe wrote: the number of guns in the US continues to go up. our violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for ten years. the UK banned virtually all gun ownership in the mid 1990's, and their homicide rates continue to climb.kensloft wrote: Everybody has been killing each other with guns and those ordinary citizens that are still alive feel that they need to protect themselves from this phenomenon. The criminals are starting to be out-gunned and know that they'll be dead if they don't get the drop on you. I would suggest that these are two reasons why the death rates are going down.the above is a joke, right? you don't seriously believe that do you?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
i can see that i've jumped feet first into my infamous aggressive rhetoric mode.
sorry for getting so personal in my response. turns of phrase calculated to raise the flames from simmer to low boil. sigh.
perhaps i need to try a new shampoo.
sorry for getting so personal in my response. turns of phrase calculated to raise the flames from simmer to low boil. sigh.
perhaps i need to try a new shampoo.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
So who's gonna protect you?
Let's set one thing straight. We were talking about a drug-crazed criminal in your house with a gun.
You, blithely, took a sentence out of it and placed it out of context and created an entirely different scenario. Asserting that I was insinuating that anyone that has a gun has been heaped into this generalization of being on a power trip.
When you talk about killers, you put them away for a long time. No matter what you do you will not bring back the victim.
You say I am evasive by not classifying good and bad... black and white. You seem to forget that there is a world of gray out there. From in the land of three strikes and you are out I can see where you are going.
You are attempting to dissect what I say into what you want me to say or mean, hence, you are free to add more conjectures and anomalies into the equation, thereby, obfuscating the intent of the original thought.
I have a friend who is a hardcore punk singer/songwriter in a band called buncho****ingoofs. He wrote this song titled "creating criminals to create jobs". It essentially told of the need to create criminals in order to keep the plush jobs for those that take care of the criminals in society. Judges, jails, cops and the taxman.
That recidivists should be more carefully watched is not in question. What is in question is why are they recidivists? Being a second-class citizen is not a nice place to be. Statistics based on whether someone will be able to get a job, if he is not going to be hired because he has a record, when the popular thought is don't give them a job because they are criminals are not statistics but a scorecard that is weighted against the criminal. That there is recidivism is a fact. Can recidivism be reduced is the point at which the need to look at the roots of the recidivistic nature are paramount to gaining an understanding of the problem.
Guess us dumb, old Canucks are still in the stone age because throwing the key away for vengeful purposes is not allowed.
A lot of your questions I will just avoid because I am sure that on reflection you'll understand why.
I wouldn't joke about the proliferation of guns and the lessening of violent crime is because the criminals aren't having the edge, that being the only guy with a gun would give them, as readily as they would have had in a non-armed populace.
You, blithely, took a sentence out of it and placed it out of context and created an entirely different scenario. Asserting that I was insinuating that anyone that has a gun has been heaped into this generalization of being on a power trip.
When you talk about killers, you put them away for a long time. No matter what you do you will not bring back the victim.
You say I am evasive by not classifying good and bad... black and white. You seem to forget that there is a world of gray out there. From in the land of three strikes and you are out I can see where you are going.
You are attempting to dissect what I say into what you want me to say or mean, hence, you are free to add more conjectures and anomalies into the equation, thereby, obfuscating the intent of the original thought.
I have a friend who is a hardcore punk singer/songwriter in a band called buncho****ingoofs. He wrote this song titled "creating criminals to create jobs". It essentially told of the need to create criminals in order to keep the plush jobs for those that take care of the criminals in society. Judges, jails, cops and the taxman.
That recidivists should be more carefully watched is not in question. What is in question is why are they recidivists? Being a second-class citizen is not a nice place to be. Statistics based on whether someone will be able to get a job, if he is not going to be hired because he has a record, when the popular thought is don't give them a job because they are criminals are not statistics but a scorecard that is weighted against the criminal. That there is recidivism is a fact. Can recidivism be reduced is the point at which the need to look at the roots of the recidivistic nature are paramount to gaining an understanding of the problem.
Guess us dumb, old Canucks are still in the stone age because throwing the key away for vengeful purposes is not allowed.
A lot of your questions I will just avoid because I am sure that on reflection you'll understand why.
I wouldn't joke about the proliferation of guns and the lessening of violent crime is because the criminals aren't having the edge, that being the only guy with a gun would give them, as readily as they would have had in a non-armed populace.
So who's gonna protect you?
WoW, this one is great!! But which of you will be the frist to interject accountability here? Oh heck, I guess I'll do it. In some lands, if your caught stealing, they cut off your hands. If you kill, you die. Now I am in no way wantng this kind of martial law in my home country, but the idea is accountability. Guns don't cause crime, people do. And when the judicial system is too weak to hold people accountable for their actions, the crime continues. Then, the government, be held accountable by the tax payers to rid them of the crime, look for a scape goat. Guns. The evil piece of metal and plastic that some how kills people. Never mind the person pulling the trigger, he gets out in 7 years. Take the guns away. Disarm the people. Now the criminals are drooling, a whole society of dis-armed potential victims.
Did you know that of the deaths in the U. S. more people die from drowning (%3) and medical mistakes(%3) than with fire arms (%1). Where is the outrage, where is the recall of back yard pools!?!?! Why do we still go to doctors?!?! If the protectors of our society want to take our guns to save us from our selves, then why don't they take our cars (%43)??
I have to go, I've got a doctors appointment, I will drive there. With my gun. He'll probobly tell me to exercise more, like swimming.
Did you know that of the deaths in the U. S. more people die from drowning (%3) and medical mistakes(%3) than with fire arms (%1). Where is the outrage, where is the recall of back yard pools!?!?! Why do we still go to doctors?!?! If the protectors of our society want to take our guns to save us from our selves, then why don't they take our cars (%43)??
I have to go, I've got a doctors appointment, I will drive there. With my gun. He'll probobly tell me to exercise more, like swimming.
Death is more universal than life. For although everyone dies, not everyone truly lives.
So who's gonna protect you?
Well now, was'nt that intensive :yh_peace great debate in an emulative sort of way, but unless you plan to "blog" your assailant into submission, not particularily valuable on a dark street.
I've tried very hard to keep this thread from being a referendum on guns. HOWEVER: I've lived with them as a normal part of my life since 10 yrs. old when I got a .22 for my birthday. I would not move to a country that would take them from me, and have turned down a very lucrative job offer from a state/city that limited them. I will fight ferociously any and all attempts to take away or limit my rights to own and/or use my guns. Am I some kind of nut or deviant?, I don't think so, I'm respected in my community, a retired Aerospace Engineer, with FAA credentials, whose decisions can make the difference between life or death for occupants in both military and commercial airplanes.
I don't argue with those who live in countries or cities that outlaw guns, I pity them. It must be horrible to live someplace where all your friends and neighbors have decided that you are too unstable, immature, or stupid to be trusted with a gun.
That having been said, I apologize for diverting. :yh_shame
Several of us have briefly discussed non conventional methods of self defense, I'd like to hear more, a little imagination here could result in a
valuable memory later.
:-6
I've tried very hard to keep this thread from being a referendum on guns. HOWEVER: I've lived with them as a normal part of my life since 10 yrs. old when I got a .22 for my birthday. I would not move to a country that would take them from me, and have turned down a very lucrative job offer from a state/city that limited them. I will fight ferociously any and all attempts to take away or limit my rights to own and/or use my guns. Am I some kind of nut or deviant?, I don't think so, I'm respected in my community, a retired Aerospace Engineer, with FAA credentials, whose decisions can make the difference between life or death for occupants in both military and commercial airplanes.
I don't argue with those who live in countries or cities that outlaw guns, I pity them. It must be horrible to live someplace where all your friends and neighbors have decided that you are too unstable, immature, or stupid to be trusted with a gun.
That having been said, I apologize for diverting. :yh_shame
Several of us have briefly discussed non conventional methods of self defense, I'd like to hear more, a little imagination here could result in a
valuable memory later.
:-6
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote: "creating criminals to create jobs". It essentially told of the need to create criminals in order to keep the plush jobs for those that take care of the criminals in society. Judges, jails, cops and the taxman.
.
i could not help noticing this comment...i did not realize i had a plush job! :wah: and from now on i shall thank the scumweasels who provide me with job security.
.
i could not help noticing this comment...i did not realize i had a plush job! :wah: and from now on i shall thank the scumweasels who provide me with job security.
So who's gonna protect you?
Bullet,
Agree with you 100% that people using guns kill people. The guns are just the means of delivering death. The guns do not kill people.
I think a point that I made in answering one post was that crime by guns was going down, while guns proliferated, because the criminals realized that the ordinary citizen could fight back and was fighting back.
In Canada hand guns are a no-no. Have been for years. Outside of the few people that get licenses to carry guns the rest are unlicensed and in the hands of criminals. If you own a gun and it is illegal then you are, for all intents and purposes, a criminal.
America is not Canada and how they get over this problem will have to be worked out there. I am not about to suggest that there be a moratorium on the sale of hand guns because, as you so accurately pointed out, the criminals will be in seventh heaven where their misdeeds against a fearful, gunless society will come to fruition.
Proper care, use and maintenance of guns is necessary for survival where there are an abundance of guns. Anything other than that is like living in a fool's paradise. That bad guys get and have guns is irrefutable. That good guys can turn bad with guns is irrefutable(killing spouse etc.). What is also irrefutable is that in these conditions you need a gun, when the occassion arises that you have to protect yourself from some rapist, home invader etc., etc.
Here we get to use hockey sticks. There you use hollowed out hockey sticks that shoot projectiles at offenders. Ever notice how much a gun on its butt looks like a hockey stick?
Agree with you 100% that people using guns kill people. The guns are just the means of delivering death. The guns do not kill people.
I think a point that I made in answering one post was that crime by guns was going down, while guns proliferated, because the criminals realized that the ordinary citizen could fight back and was fighting back.
In Canada hand guns are a no-no. Have been for years. Outside of the few people that get licenses to carry guns the rest are unlicensed and in the hands of criminals. If you own a gun and it is illegal then you are, for all intents and purposes, a criminal.
America is not Canada and how they get over this problem will have to be worked out there. I am not about to suggest that there be a moratorium on the sale of hand guns because, as you so accurately pointed out, the criminals will be in seventh heaven where their misdeeds against a fearful, gunless society will come to fruition.
Proper care, use and maintenance of guns is necessary for survival where there are an abundance of guns. Anything other than that is like living in a fool's paradise. That bad guys get and have guns is irrefutable. That good guys can turn bad with guns is irrefutable(killing spouse etc.). What is also irrefutable is that in these conditions you need a gun, when the occassion arises that you have to protect yourself from some rapist, home invader etc., etc.
Here we get to use hockey sticks. There you use hollowed out hockey sticks that shoot projectiles at offenders. Ever notice how much a gun on its butt looks like a hockey stick?
So who's gonna protect you?
lady cop wrote: i could not help noticing this comment...i did not realize i had a plush job! :wah: and from now on i shall thank the scumweasels who provide me with job security.
The first thought that came into my mind when I wrote that was LC was going to call me on this. In my posting of this the thought of your thoughts didn't re-occur to me, so now, I grovel before you begging your forgiveness for my lapse in continuity that had been overlooked in my original post. Grovel, grovel, mea culpa.
You are an excellent point of fact. You are on the line. You have to live with the stress and you are the thin blue line that makes 26,000 a year for your efforts of keeping us safe.
In another post you stated, somewhat facetiously, that you were only a ferry ride away from a high paying police job if the call came.
Well, consider this a call. In Toronto the fresh out of Police college earns about 60,000 a year. When you take the conversion of Canadian to US funds (84 cents to the US dollar) it is a whack more than you are making for the work you are performing. I assume that you have been at it for more than a couple of years. Most Canadian cities are at or about the same pay scale.
Canadian cities are not as crime ridden as American cities. The stress of, "will this guy I pull over shoot me", is so far in the back of the mind that it doesn't happen everytime you pull someone over. Hence, the other jobs that are within the judicial system have these recruits living on the lower end of the pay scales.
I should clarify that my friend wrote the song when punks were the newest phenomenon in society. Nobody knew who they were and what they were about.
Of course it was up to the police to investigate what these people were about. This led to haberdashery profiling (akin to racial profiling) that saw people being harassed because of how they looked. Needless to say excuses to stop people for random checks abounded and some were arrested for drinking and pot charges.
This would still be going on today were it not for the fact that the South American cocaine pushers decided to set up shop and distribution in their neighbourhood. No guns meant that punch outs and visible hatred for the coke pushers abounded. The populace and police saw that they weren't going to go for blow and refreshingly they became accepted for who they were and not what they looked like.
Once again, Grovelling for you forgiveness,
kensloft
The first thought that came into my mind when I wrote that was LC was going to call me on this. In my posting of this the thought of your thoughts didn't re-occur to me, so now, I grovel before you begging your forgiveness for my lapse in continuity that had been overlooked in my original post. Grovel, grovel, mea culpa.
You are an excellent point of fact. You are on the line. You have to live with the stress and you are the thin blue line that makes 26,000 a year for your efforts of keeping us safe.
In another post you stated, somewhat facetiously, that you were only a ferry ride away from a high paying police job if the call came.
Well, consider this a call. In Toronto the fresh out of Police college earns about 60,000 a year. When you take the conversion of Canadian to US funds (84 cents to the US dollar) it is a whack more than you are making for the work you are performing. I assume that you have been at it for more than a couple of years. Most Canadian cities are at or about the same pay scale.
Canadian cities are not as crime ridden as American cities. The stress of, "will this guy I pull over shoot me", is so far in the back of the mind that it doesn't happen everytime you pull someone over. Hence, the other jobs that are within the judicial system have these recruits living on the lower end of the pay scales.
I should clarify that my friend wrote the song when punks were the newest phenomenon in society. Nobody knew who they were and what they were about.
Of course it was up to the police to investigate what these people were about. This led to haberdashery profiling (akin to racial profiling) that saw people being harassed because of how they looked. Needless to say excuses to stop people for random checks abounded and some were arrested for drinking and pot charges.
This would still be going on today were it not for the fact that the South American cocaine pushers decided to set up shop and distribution in their neighbourhood. No guns meant that punch outs and visible hatred for the coke pushers abounded. The populace and police saw that they weren't going to go for blow and refreshingly they became accepted for who they were and not what they looked like.
Once again, Grovelling for you forgiveness,
kensloft
So who's gonna protect you?
Der Wulf,
I hope the subsequent posting about guns helped define my position.
When I was a child of 5 or 6 years old my father had me and my 9 or ten year old brother don the boxing gloves. Guess who took the Wuppin'? Boxing for the local recreation club against kids that were older than me was standard. Skill and expertise didn't count. What counted was that I would put the gloves on when asked.
Eventually, years later, I had a reputation that although I was a nice kid, if you crossed me or threatened me I wouldn't walk away. Got a few fat lips and bloody noses both served and taken.
Rather than give you a long autobiography of my growing up, we'll flash forward to the Martial Arts of the Orient. I have never been trained but I have observed and assimilated their ways in case I came up against someone that used his strengths for the bad or more importantly against me. I would practice the excercises from the standpoint of Yoga and its stretching.
I learned to power punch and power kick, grappling, judo, ju jitsu, Yadda-yadda-yadda. I came to discover Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do through a punk friend of mine who used it as it should be used and that is defense. What is startling about Jeet Kune Do is that it doesn't say that one form is better than another. It states that they all work and you should put them together. Know them all. Not get stuck in the rut of thinking that your martial art is the superior martial art.
Going and taking martial art lessons is good for the soul and the body. It gives you the peace of mind that if something did happen, then, you wouldn't be a meek, hapless victim. Physically, it would put you into a physical fitness regimen that would benfit your life. Keeping healthy and fit, spiritually and physically, is what life is all about.
It gives you the confidence to go where you need to go. It gives you the sense of being protected no matter who your adversary is. Big or small there are the means to bring them down. It is Karmic in that if you abuse it, then someone will happen along that will abuse you. In Christian parlance, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".
The really fine hints for safety that have been expressed by Bandit are hard to beat and should be in everyone's guide book on safety tips for personal protection at home and away be you male or female. I think what we are both saying is that you must take advantage of learning how not to be a victim through whatever means are available to you.
Tai Chi, that slow moving martial art form, is a good place to go if you don't feel that the physical exertion of the other martial arts is your cup of tea. It keeps you moving and stretching. Slow cardiovascular exercise. But don't be fooled by the slow dance because these moves when used properly will flatten most opponents or at least allow you to get away from undesirable situations. Add speed to the grace of movement and you are a defensive/offensive weapon. Its main goal is the health benefits of excercise. With the excercise comes the confidence. With the confidence is the shedding of fear. With the shedding of fear is the acceptance of others for who they are as opposed to who they may project to be.
As one friend admitted to me about guns and unarmed combat: the trajectory of the bullet is a straight line. Don't be a standing target.
I hope the subsequent posting about guns helped define my position.
When I was a child of 5 or 6 years old my father had me and my 9 or ten year old brother don the boxing gloves. Guess who took the Wuppin'? Boxing for the local recreation club against kids that were older than me was standard. Skill and expertise didn't count. What counted was that I would put the gloves on when asked.
Eventually, years later, I had a reputation that although I was a nice kid, if you crossed me or threatened me I wouldn't walk away. Got a few fat lips and bloody noses both served and taken.
Rather than give you a long autobiography of my growing up, we'll flash forward to the Martial Arts of the Orient. I have never been trained but I have observed and assimilated their ways in case I came up against someone that used his strengths for the bad or more importantly against me. I would practice the excercises from the standpoint of Yoga and its stretching.
I learned to power punch and power kick, grappling, judo, ju jitsu, Yadda-yadda-yadda. I came to discover Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do through a punk friend of mine who used it as it should be used and that is defense. What is startling about Jeet Kune Do is that it doesn't say that one form is better than another. It states that they all work and you should put them together. Know them all. Not get stuck in the rut of thinking that your martial art is the superior martial art.
Going and taking martial art lessons is good for the soul and the body. It gives you the peace of mind that if something did happen, then, you wouldn't be a meek, hapless victim. Physically, it would put you into a physical fitness regimen that would benfit your life. Keeping healthy and fit, spiritually and physically, is what life is all about.
It gives you the confidence to go where you need to go. It gives you the sense of being protected no matter who your adversary is. Big or small there are the means to bring them down. It is Karmic in that if you abuse it, then someone will happen along that will abuse you. In Christian parlance, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".
The really fine hints for safety that have been expressed by Bandit are hard to beat and should be in everyone's guide book on safety tips for personal protection at home and away be you male or female. I think what we are both saying is that you must take advantage of learning how not to be a victim through whatever means are available to you.
Tai Chi, that slow moving martial art form, is a good place to go if you don't feel that the physical exertion of the other martial arts is your cup of tea. It keeps you moving and stretching. Slow cardiovascular exercise. But don't be fooled by the slow dance because these moves when used properly will flatten most opponents or at least allow you to get away from undesirable situations. Add speed to the grace of movement and you are a defensive/offensive weapon. Its main goal is the health benefits of excercise. With the excercise comes the confidence. With the confidence is the shedding of fear. With the shedding of fear is the acceptance of others for who they are as opposed to who they may project to be.
As one friend admitted to me about guns and unarmed combat: the trajectory of the bullet is a straight line. Don't be a standing target.
So who's gonna protect you?
KENSLOft! STOP THAT GROVELING! it doesn't suit you! i was, as usual, being facetious. i am an American cop and the money is passable, the ferry reference was because i plan to move to England later in the year. of course i knew you didn't think i had a plush job...hell, it just gave me my very first heart attack at a relatively young age, i had done my usual 12 hour shift the night before, kicking butt and taking prisoners! felt fine. anyway, your comments as well as others' here are cogent and sensible. i have a bit of a skewed outlook on some of it due to my experience and the fact i deal with the dregs. carry on and stop with the mea culpa!
felt fine. anyway, your comments as well as others' here are cogent and sensible. i have a bit of a skewed outlook on some of it due to my experience and the fact i deal with the dregs. carry on and stop with the mea culpa! So who's gonna protect you?
10-4 :yh_femfig
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
LadyCop :-6
So who's gonna protect you?
capt_buzzard wrote: LadyCop :-6
AW Capt....you're so sweet! somehow i think you've kissed the blarney stone! 
AW Capt....you're so sweet!
somehow i think you've kissed the blarney stone! -
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
lady cop wrote: AW Capt....you're so sweet! somehow i think you've kissed the blarney stone! I never did. We Irish don't bother with that stuff. I watched Cagney & Lacy instead :wah:
somehow i think you've kissed the blarney stone! I never did. We Irish don't bother with that stuff. I watched Cagney & Lacy instead :wah:-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
lady cop wrote: KENSLOft! STOP THAT GROVELING! it doesn't suit you! i was, as usual, being facetious. i am an American cop and the money is passable, the ferry reference was because i plan to move to England later in the year. of course i knew you didn't think i had a plush job...hell, it just gave me my very first heart attack at a relatively young age, i had done my usual 12 hour shift the night before, kicking butt and taking prisoners! felt fine. anyway, your comments as well as others' here are cogent and sensible. i have a bit of a skewed outlook on some of it due to my experience and the fact i deal with the dregs. carry on and stop with the mea culpa! And Dublin later :guitarist
felt fine. anyway, your comments as well as others' here are cogent and sensible. i have a bit of a skewed outlook on some of it due to my experience and the fact i deal with the dregs. carry on and stop with the mea culpa! And Dublin later :guitaristSo who's gonna protect you?
I'll second that motion by cap'n B.
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote: I'll second that motion by cap'n B.
WOW *blushing* you are the nicest gentlemen! thankyou! next time you're in florida just tell them you have a friend who's a cop! :-6
WOW *blushing* you are the nicest gentlemen! thankyou! next time you're in florida just tell them you have a friend who's a cop! :-6
So who's gonna protect you?
Wow Lady Cop, didn't know that those two had that much pucker in them, do you have the same effect on the bad guys?
We're looking for unique defensive ideas, can you share your "charm" technique?:D :-6
We're looking for unique defensive ideas, can you share your "charm" technique?:D :-6
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
So who's gonna protect you?
Der Wulf wrote: Wow Lady Cop, didn't know that those two had that much pucker in them, do you have the same effect on the bad guys?
We're looking for unique defensive ideas, can you share your "charm" technique?:D :-6
we take an intensive defensive tactics course in academy as well as verbal judo...i think you either know how to talk to people or you don't , it can't be taught. as to bad guys...we all have our style. in routine situations i like humor. i like to crack them up while i cuff them up. and i like to speak respectfully.98% of time i get compliance. until of course it goes bad, then no more Ms. nice cop. males tend to either try to flirt with me or they are totally pissed off a woman has them in a helpless position. they are treated accordingly. what IS funny is the males who want me to search them...if they are too anxious i just get some big ugly male cop to do it!
We're looking for unique defensive ideas, can you share your "charm" technique?:D :-6
we take an intensive defensive tactics course in academy as well as verbal judo...i think you either know how to talk to people or you don't , it can't be taught. as to bad guys...we all have our style. in routine situations i like humor. i like to crack them up while i cuff them up. and i like to speak respectfully.98% of time i get compliance. until of course it goes bad, then no more Ms. nice cop. males tend to either try to flirt with me or they are totally pissed off a woman has them in a helpless position. they are treated accordingly. what IS funny is the males who want me to search them...if they are too anxious i just get some big ugly male cop to do it!
So who's gonna protect you?
also note Der Wulf...it's the sight of a woman in uniform with a gun and 45 pounds of lethal gear hanging off her duty belt...the stuff that makes some males drool.
So who's gonna protect you?
kensloft wrote: Der Wulf,
I hope the subsequent posting about guns helped define my position.
You and I have no argument, my political, and social philosophies all begin with personal freedom and responsibility, and end with the profound wish that these commodities could be shared by everyone.
Responsible choice means informed choice, not some knee jerk reaction, or ignorance based fear.
Your choice is without coercion, and intelligently made. You do not seek to limit or restrict my freedom, ....good on us both.
Since we both intend to inflict pain, damage, and worse to scumbags, we'll exchange a cyber high five, and hope that the ones with super thick skulls come my way. :p
I hope the subsequent posting about guns helped define my position.
You and I have no argument, my political, and social philosophies all begin with personal freedom and responsibility, and end with the profound wish that these commodities could be shared by everyone.
Responsible choice means informed choice, not some knee jerk reaction, or ignorance based fear.
Your choice is without coercion, and intelligently made. You do not seek to limit or restrict my freedom, ....good on us both.
Since we both intend to inflict pain, damage, and worse to scumbags, we'll exchange a cyber high five, and hope that the ones with super thick skulls come my way. :p
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
So who's gonna protect you?
lady cop wrote: also note Der Wulf...it's the sight of a woman in uniform with a gun and 45 pounds of lethal gear hanging off her duty belt...the stuff that makes some males drool.
Watch this space for a code 3, felony stop, tire squeelin visit from Lady Cop looking great in her red spandex suit, black spike heeled boots, golden cape with 8'' high LC monogram, black bull whip in hand, 9mm Baretta on hip, and silver tasseled handcuffs on beaded Sam Browne Duty Belt.
:-4
Watch this space for a code 3, felony stop, tire squeelin visit from Lady Cop looking great in her red spandex suit, black spike heeled boots, golden cape with 8'' high LC monogram, black bull whip in hand, 9mm Baretta on hip, and silver tasseled handcuffs on beaded Sam Browne Duty Belt.
:-4
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
So who's gonna protect you?
i don't think my new sheriff would approve of the look! ...more like florida-deputy-forest-green with combat boots and smokey the bear hat. 
sorry to ruin that image you have going there!
sorry to ruin that image you have going there! So who's gonna protect you?
Der Wulf wrote: Since we both intend to inflict pain, damage, and worse to scumbags, we'll exchange a cyber high five, and hope that the ones with super thick skulls come my way. :p
I'll cheers that next time I have a brewski.
I'll cheers that next time I have a brewski.
So who's gonna protect you?
if i was in trouble the first people i would call would be the police, they may not legally have to help me but i know they would as at there core (thats why they joined up)
as for shooting, how anybody can say its ok to shoot animals as thats (game) its not a game to the animal
& to use violence as a defence seems only ok if your human, if a dog attacks a child for poking it in the eye with a pen, you better believe the dog will be put down
but thats getting off the point, i value the police & emergency services & believe they will keep me safe even when they dont have to :yh_worshp
as for shooting, how anybody can say its ok to shoot animals as thats (game) its not a game to the animal
& to use violence as a defence seems only ok if your human, if a dog attacks a child for poking it in the eye with a pen, you better believe the dog will be put down
but thats getting off the point, i value the police & emergency services & believe they will keep me safe even when they dont have to :yh_worshp
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
So who's gonna protect you?
The police here are only protecting the government and MP's property. One lady called the police in Dublin when her house was being robbed and she had to wait 3 hours for the police to arrive.