It always seems that most progressives tend to think that only criminals do horrible things with guns. Well, that isn't always true. Why should American citizens be allowed to have assault rifles? Maybe this article will help you think of things a little differently:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/the-police-state-comes-to_b_2321878.html



The Police State Comes To Arkansas



Unfortunately, not an exaggeration:

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.


Here's the least surprising line in the article:

Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime.
Stovall added that he realized there was little difference between what he was proposing and martial law--and that he didn't much care.
The mayor and city attorney have apparently walked the idea back, at least a little. But the police chief isn't wavering. And of course it's his cops who will be enforcing the law.

Using SWAT teams for routine patrols isn't uncommon. Fresno did this for several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The city sent its Violent Crimes Suppression Unit into poorer neighborhoods and stopped, confronted, questioned, and searched nearly everyone they encountered. "It's a war," one SWAT officer told Christian Parenti in a a report for The Naiton (not available online). Another said, "If you're 21, male, living in one of these neighborhoods, and you're not in our computer, then there's something definitely wrong."

A 1999 report in the Boston Globe found similar units patrolling the streets of Indianapolis and San Francisco, which the reporter noted gave the communities under siege "all the ambiance of the West Bank."

In a 1997 survey, the criminologist Peter Kraska found that about one in five cities in his survey used their SWAT teams for routine patrols. It seems likely that number has fallen since then as the crime rate has dropped (the Fresno VCSU was disbanded in 2002), but it's hard to say for sure. The total number of SWAT teams has only increased since then, as has the number of situations in which they're utilized.

But Stovall's comments show that it isn't so much a rise in crime that allows these sorts of police actions to happen, it's the fear of crime. (Though there has been an actual increase in crime in Paragould.) Back in the early 1970s when Nixon was preparing to impose his new crime bill on Washington, D.C., he ran into a problem. According to FBI data, crime was actually starting to fall in D.C. Nixon's strategy was to make D.C. the "model city" to show off his tough anti-crime policies. The fact that crime was already falling presented two problems: 1) It could make the city less fearful, resulting in less pressure on Congress to push through his bill, and 2) it would make it more difficult for Nixon to claim credit for any crime drop in the city later. So Nixon's Justice Department sat on the figures. They refused to release them until after they had won on Capitol Hill.

The fear of crime is ever-present, even when crime isn't. For example, despite the fact that the crime rate has been dropping dramatically for nearly 20 years*--to historic lows--70 percent of Americans still think crime is getting worse.

I'm sure the cable news obsession with sensational crime stories and the emergence of tragedy vultures like Nancy Grace have a lot to do with it. Long-developing trends like the crime drop by definition aren't daily news. Crime is, even when it's down. I've seen it stated over and over in the Newtown coverage that mass shootings are on the rise. As I pointed out in the morning links, there is no evidence for that, and in fact the numbers suggest they're on the wane. They happen so infrequently that there simply aren't enough data points to say for certain.

Unfortunately, empirical data aren't nearly as compelling as images of victims and mug shots of scary-looking criminals. And like Nixon, today's politicians and law enforcement officials know that you don't pass new laws and give the police new powers by assuaging public fear. You get these things by stoking it.

(*There was a slight uptick in the crime figures in 2011, driven mostly by an increase in minor assaults.)

You don't know what you are talking about. I don't even own a gun and I am not a member of NRA.

You can't blame the guns.

Everyone wants someone to blame. No one wants to just accept the facts and get on with their lives.

They all think they can "Fix" the problem with more government control.

It ain't gonna happen.

The root of the problem in my opinion is probably psychotic drugs with weird side effects. I want to know what kind of drugs that shooter was on. He looked totally wacked out in his picture with his bugged out eyes. Totally wacked out. Do you think they will release that information?

What kind of psychotic drugs legal or illegal was he on? If he was a "nice" guy like everyone says he was.....what happened? How does a "nice" kid get that crazy? Drugs is all I can think of.

I am noticing that there are more people here on Mingle who support the second amendment and the right to bear arms than people who think more gun control or banning assault weapons will solve the problem or "keep them safer."

I don't think you can prevent criminals from getting guns even if they make it difficult for non-criminals to get them. Criminals will break into gun stores and steal them. DUH.

Also, I don't think the government should have a list of everyone who owns a gun. That will just make it easy for them to confiscate all the guns if they decide they need to install a dictator.

I do not own a gun, but I do not think it is wrong for people to have a gun legally owned that is. I know how to shoot a 38 , cause I went to a gun range in Chicago with a friend years ago. I raised two sons and I didn't want a gun in my home. Guns or not the problem,
Mental Ill People, and Criminals with guns are.

I think you are one of the people who should own a gun (just in case you ever need it).

And remember, if you have to take the time to either load or remove a trigger lock from a gun, it's too late.

"Maybe this is crazy, but I think the right to own a gun is trumped by the right not to be shot by one." - Andy Borowitz

I have felt the need a time or two; However, most of the time I feel safe, and other times I just Pray God Please watch out for me from the EVIL and MENTAL ILL with guns.

It's crazy alright. The same logic can also apply to just about anything that could possibly hurt someone.

the right to own a car is trumped by the right not to be run over by one.

the right to own a baseball bat is trumped by the right not to be beaten by one.

the right to own a dinner fork is trumped by the right not to be stabbed by one.

the right to have hands is trumped by the right not to be strangled by them.

Someone else's right to life is trumped by the right not to be killed by someone else.


Slippery slope eh?




"It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it." -- (somebody with some good sense)

We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty and not the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

- Ronald Reagan

(In case you forgot, he got shot by someone)

It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

...AND his nation!

I'm afraid the buck didn't stop at the Truman's Whitehouse...It stops at every single one of you.

IF anyone wants to blame someone for the sorry state of their nation they need only look in the mirror to see the culprit. The state of your nation, good or bad is the responsibility of the people. If it looks like crap, it must be because the people failed in their duty to make it into the nation it might have been.

I do my best.

Okay now you got me riled up.

I went to see some of my friends and acquired a little gun. Its not much, but I think it will do just fine. LOL

You always feel the intelligence level of the conversation drop when a person starts showing off/spouting off about their gun....for some reason...I haven't identified exactly why that is....

And Sasquatch too.

Its a joke ... duh. Lighten up lady.