Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[MigL]

While there may be a number of racist cops, I find it hard to believe that these guys go out to find a 'black man to shoot today".

Might a lot of it have to do with the fact that cops are actually scared when they make these stops because EVERYBODY is armed in the US ? As a matter of fact both of the two black victims were carrying.

Is America's love of guns at the root of the problem ?

 

A lot of good cops have been included with the bad in the eyes of black America and brought about the BLM movement.

I now fear that a lot of decent black Americans will be lumped in with the two jackasses who opened fire on the police in Dallas.

[ajb]

I forget details and who ran the experiments, but...

 

In a series of experiments on police officers in the US on the gun range it was found that officers are more likely to shoot a target of a black man than a white one. This is across the board of all officers no matter their own race. Black officers also shot black targets more often.

 

The officers were more likley to assume the intent of the black target was violent - even when the targets were not depicted as armed - some were holding items other than guns.

 

It seems - and the psychologist running the experiment said she is includined in this - that people are more likely to be afraid of black men and interpret their actions as hostile than white men. And this seems to be across all races including black men!

 

So, guns are the reason for shootings, but the worry of black crime is not.

 

A quick google may show the study I am talking about.

[StringJunky]

I forget details and who ran the experiments, but...

 

In a series of experiments on police officers in the US on the gun range it was found that officers are more likely to shoot a target of a black man than a white one. This is across the board of all officers no matter their own race. Black officers also shot black targets more often.

 

The officers were more likley to assume the intent of the black target was violent - even when the targets were not depicted as armed - some were holding items other than guns.

 

It seems - and the psychologist running the experiment said she is includined in this - that people are more likely to be afraid of black men and interpret their actions as hostile than white men. And this seems to be across all races including black men!

 

So, guns are the reason for shootings, but the worry of black crime is not.

 

A quick google may show the study I am talking about.

I think the underlying problem here is that western society insidiously disempowers black people throughout their lives from young which creates the negative feelings that they are more likely to carry than their white counterparts, hence, making them more likely to engage in antisocial behaviours; this preordains them to be seen as worse by default and more likely to be shot at.

Edited July 8, 2016 by StringJunky

[ajb]

... hence, making them more likely to engage in antisocial behaviours; this preordains them to be seen as worse by default and more likely to be shot at.

Indeed, and this is quite irrespective of the individuals actually being involved in any criminal activity at the time or otherwise. The problem in the US is much wider than just the police. It just 'happens' that these are armed individuals that come into contact with a wide spectrum of their society.

[StringJunky]

Indeed, and this is quite irrespective of the individuals actually being involved in any criminal activity at the time or otherwise.

Yes, there is an inherent bias towards any particular black person being seen as bad simply because of the statistics which creates a vicious self-perpetuating cycle. More generally, they are victims, not the cause, of the problem.

Edited July 8, 2016 by StringJunky

[ajb]

Indeed... you know I have no idea where the line between statistics and racism is. The US police very difficult job given the nature of US society - very fragmanted with several isolated social and economic groups.

 

There are some clear problems with the police themselves that need addressing.

 

a) The drive to equip the police with military grade weapons.

b) The idea that survivability is top priority - and not the protection of the people.

 

Point b) is a subtle one I think. While we all want every police officer in the world to end his/her shift alive, there should be some expectation that he/she may not. We accept that in the armed forces - no action can be expected to be 100% no casualties. Maybe US police need to think more along these lines. Which then comes back to point a). Making the police into very heavily armed and armoured units does not warm them to the people.

[MigL]

It just seems to me that there are crazy people all over the world, but only in America are they allowed ( and their fellow citizens defend this right ) to buy military grade weapons and perpetrate this kind of crazy sh*t.

[Greg H.]

It just seems to me that there are crazy people all over the world, but only in America are they allowed ( and their fellow citizens defend this right ) to buy military grade weapons and perpetrate this kind of crazy sh*t.

Yeah - those darned rights. It's so damned inconvenient when they apply to everyone.

 

Oh - wait, that's why they're called rights, and not privileges. And actually, we don't let crazy people have firearms. But you have to prove they're crazy before you can strip them of that right. Because, you know, rights and stuff.

 

Edit:

Huh. Pointing out inconvenient truth is enough to get negative rep. But disparaging an entire nation because of the acts of a few is worthy of an up vote? Interesting.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Greg H.

[StringJunky]

Indeed... you know I have no idea where the line between statistics and racism is. The US police very difficult job given the nature of US society - very fragmanted with several isolated social and economic groups.

 

There are some clear problems with the police themselves that need addressing.

 

a) The drive to equip the police with military grade weapons.

b) The idea that survivability is top priority - and not the protection of the people.

 

Point b) is a subtle one I think. While we all want every police officer in the world to end his/her shift alive, there should be some expectation that he/she may not. We accept that in the armed forces - no action can be expected to be 100% no casualties. Maybe US police need to think more along these lines. Which then comes back to point a). Making the police into very heavily armed and armoured units does not warm them to the people.

....and, so, we quickly walk back into that crazy, inhuman quagmire of the Second Amendendment...a bird's nest of a tangle if ever there was one

[Greg H.]

A lot of good cops have been included with the bad in the eyes of black America and brought about the BLM movement.

I now fear that a lot of decent black Americans will be lumped in with the two jackasses who opened fire on the police in Dallas.

They will, and not through any fault of their own. It's the same mentality that leads to people being suspicious of Muslims because of the actions of a radical minority of the group. Fear can make people do ugly, terrible things. People, by and large, react to fear worse than almost any other animal on the planet. It's a primal instinct, one which we aren't trained to handle very well, and one that overrides every rational thought in our brains, usually at the worst possible moment.

 

 

 

People are smart. They can handle it.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Greg H.

[ajb]

Oh - wait, that's why they're called rights, and not privileges.

But you agree that a society can change rights into privileges? And in particular, the right to bear arms could be removed if US society accepted the benefits of doing so?

 

Not that I think that this is the root to the problem we are discussing here - that is another deep cultural issue.

Edited July 8, 2016 by ajb

[Greg H.]

But you agree that a society can change rights into privileges? And in particular, the right to bear arms could be removed if US society accepted the benefits of doing so?

 

Not that I think that this is the root to the problem we are discussing here - that is another deep cultural issue.

Could it be changed? Yes, absolutely. That's what democracy and the rule of law are about. Should it be changed and, more importantly, would changing it fix anything? That's a deeper, much thornier issue, Many people view the Bill of Rights as inviolate - and if one of them can be removed, then why not another?

 

Here's the crux of the matter - removing the Second Amendment requires a constitutional amendment, and those aren't governed by the people in general, but by the Congress and the state governments. The general population don't get a vote - and if the government gets the notion that they can remove one of those rights, what's really to stop them from removing - say - the right to freedom of religion? Or the right to freedom of the press (although some say that died out on it's own ) - or the right against self incrimination?

 

Yes, it's a slippery slope argument. But in this case, it's a slope that may be best avoided in its entirety.

[ajb]

But in this case, it's a slope that may be best avoided in its entirety.

This is what US society has to wrestle with - is the advantage of the right to bear arms greater than the cost due to accidents, intentional shootings etc, and/or greater than the advantages removing this right would bring?

 

Right now it seems that US society is okay with the children and babies that killed every year. US society seem happy that people have tools to remove another persons life. Fair enough.

[Greg H.]

Right now it seems that US society is okay with the children and babies that killed every year. US society seem happy that people have tools to remove another persons life. Fair enough.

That's an extremely simple way of looking at it. Of course we're not happy that people get killed, any more than we're happy that terrorists bomb venues in the middle east or Europe. It's deeply troubling. But equally troubling is the idea of surrendering a right that's been enshrined in our government since its inception.

 

And for the record - I can kill people without a firearm. I have a 3500 pound weapon sitting in my driveway that can take out an entire school bus of kids. I can make a deadly weapon out of the construction tools in my garage. I can craft a bomb powerful enough to bring down a skyscraper from the agricultural supplies found on any farm in the country (or any other in the western world, for that matter). You know why I don't? Because I have a reverence for human life and a respect for my fellow man, whether I agree with him or not.

 

Frankly, people with firearms don't scare me. People with a willingness to hurt others and a casual disregard for human life, on the other hand, scare the shit out of me - whether they have a weapon or not.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Greg H.

[ajb]

And for the record - I can kill people without a firearm.

It always comes back to this...

 

Anyway, your society seems to accept guns openly. The society had accepted the pros and cons. Or are things going to change?

[DrmDoc]

This is what US society has to wrestle with - is the advantage of the right to bear arms greater than the cost due to accidents, intentional shootings etc, and/or greater than the advantages removing this right would bring?

 

Right now it seems that US society is okay with the children and babies that killed every year. US society seem happy that people have tools to remove another persons life. Fair enough.

 

Actually, a majority of the American public wants stricter firearm rules and controls; however, their voices are muted by a powerful gun lobby that holds enormous sway over a largely indifferent, predominately white-male American Congress. The right to keep and bare arms was included in our Constitution by our countries founders as a deterrent to government (England at the time) acts against the free will of the people. Although we live in different times, I have as much faith in our government as our Constitution's authors had in England--but I don't own a gun and I deplore their use and invention. Though I am among its numbers, humanity is the most vicious and violent animal on Earth and many of us, I think, feel vulnerable against that threat potential. Therefore, guns will remain a necessary tool in our society so long as we remain incapable of excising the primitive and tribal aspects of our nature.

[StringJunky]

It always comes back to this...

 

Anyway, your society seems to accept guns openly. The society had accepted the pros and cons. Or are things going to change?

Insane people don't know they are insane by virtue of their insanity...

[ajb]

Actually, a majority of the American public wants stricter firearm rules and controls; however, their voices are muted by a powerful gun lobby that holds enormous sway over a largely indifferent, predominately white-male American Congress.

I really hope that this majority gets it voice.

[Endy0816]

Some of us know its crazy.

 

I

[waitforufo]

I forget details and who ran the experiments, but...

 

In a series of experiments on police officers in the US on the gun range it was found that officers are more likely to shoot a target of a black man than a white one. This is across the board of all officers no matter their own race. Black officers also shot black targets more often.

 

The officers were more likley to assume the intent of the black target was violent - even when the targets were not depicted as armed - some were holding items other than guns.

 

It seems - and the psychologist running the experiment said she is includined in this - that people are more likely to be afraid of black men and interpret their actions as hostile than white men. And this seems to be across all races including black men!

 

So, guns are the reason for shootings, but the worry of black crime is not.

 

A quick google may show the study I am talking about.

Maybe it has more to do with the fact that the police train by shooting targets that look like this.

 

[Danijel Gorupec]

And for the record - I can kill people without a firearm. I have a 3500 pound weapon sitting in my driveway that can take out an entire school bus of kids. I can make a deadly weapon out of the construction tools in my garage. I can craft a bomb powerful enough to bring down a skyscraper from the agricultural supplies found on any farm in the country (or any other in the western world, for that matter). You know why I don't? Because I have a reverence for human life and a respect for my fellow man, whether I agree with him or not.

Here is what I think is wrong with such logic... If you take out your car keys, I will assume you are going to drive; If you buy some fertilizer, I will assume you need it for your lawn; If you start a chainsaw, I will assume you are going to cut a tree... but If you take out your gun, I am not going to assume you are going to scratch your nose. Guns are made for a specific purpose and they make other people nervous. They just make a society a bit more nervous.

[ajb]

Maybe it has more to do with the fact that the police train by shooting targets that look like this.

You should suggest this to the police!

Here is what I think is wrong with such logic...

Well said.

[waitforufo]

Many people view the Bill of Rights as inviolate - and if one of them can be removed, then why not another?

The bill of rights only includes the first 10 amendments. None of those amendments have ever been removed.

[Greg H.]

It always comes back to this...

 

Anyway, your society seems to accept guns openly. The society had accepted the pros and cons. Or are things going to change?

As opposed to...accepting them secretly?

 

And things are changing. For the better, in my opinion. More people are coming to accept a more common sense approach to firearm regulations. It's not an all or nothing thing, and the bulk of the American populace understands that. We don't all gnash our teeth and stamp our feet when someone says that ownership of firearms should be regulated. It should be - and it is, and those regulations need to continue to adapt to the changing culture and environment of our society. But those regulations need to make sense, not be knee jerk reactions to the actions of a few.

I really hope that this majority gets it voice.

So do I. Because, ultimately, that's the fundamental right I chose to defend when I put on the uniform - the right of the people, as a democracy, to govern themselves.

Here is what I think is wrong with such logic... If you take out your car keys, I will assume you are going to drive; If you buy some fertilizer, I will assume you need it for your lawn; If you start a chainsaw, I will assume you are going to cut a tree... but If you take out your gun, I am not going to assume you are going to scratch your nose. Guns are made for a specific purpose and they make other people nervous. They just make a society a bit more nervous.

You're right, they do have a purpose. They're a tool, and that purpose is to kill people. Just like the purpose of a hammer is to drive nails.

You are assuming, however, that the purpose of the one is inherently wrong, while the purpose of the other is not.

 

But I can use that hammer and nail to crucify a martyr, or to build a house. I can use a gun to kill a man threatening my family, or I can use it to kill an innocent person minding their own business. Tools do not make decisions, regardless of their purpose, and the removal of a tool from the box doesn't mean people won't find a way to accomplish the same goal.

[ajb]

I can use a gun to kill a man threatening my family,

Serious question... is US society really that dangerous that normal law abiding citizens need to be armed?

 

If so, then you can make a great case, particularly if the number of accidental shootings and those maked by mistake are pale into insignificance as compared to all the lives saved. This maybe the case, maybe not- but as I said this is what US society has to think about. And so far the very vocal pro-guns lobby is winning this argument.