Fifth-Most Crime Ridden City in America Dismisses a Fourth of its Police Force. 911 Still in Service

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Oakland, California, the fifth-most crime ridden city in America, faced a $32 million budget deficit last year. It closed the gap by dismissing a fourth of its police force, more than 200 officers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/oakland-pays-17-million-for-nfl-raiders-as-cops-get-cut.html

What's the law relating to self-defense?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Aren't proposals to disarm law-abiding home owners as sensible as the reaction to invade Iraq for the 9/11 attack by persons other than Iraqis? Are all reactions good reactions?

Is crime down in Oakland? Can it be that none of the law-abiding home owners will ever need to own firearms to discourage home invasions? After all, aren't their local police just a phone call away? Isn't that true all over?

If the law-abiding firearm owners in Oakland are called "gun nuts," and if there are proposals by those claiming to Democrats to take away or greatly restrict firearms, will that have no effect upon Oakland voters in the 2014 election? By what right do any posters claim to believe that there is a left v right divide over gun ownership and that liberals and progressives oppose gun ownership and that right-wingers are the only ones favoring that? Is such an alleged belief based upon a hoax?

If a hoax has been created to exploit a real tragedy so that the Republicans can repeat their 1994 election victories after the first gun ban, isn't that something that would be appreciated by Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and those who admire their skill with dirty tricks?

If anyone in Oakland wants a cop, just call 911.

[NYC_SKP]

1. This:

Part strikes me as especially important:

If a hoax has been created to exploit a real tragedy so that the Republicans can repeat their 1994 election victories after the first gun ban, isn't that something that would be appreciated by Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and those who admire their skill with dirty tricks?

Our energy would be far more wisely directed away from this and toward equity, campaign finance reform, universal health care, taxing wealth, etc.

...

[FreakinDJ]

2. Agree

[spirald]

3. Oakland paid over $57 million in claims to victims of police abuse

Proposals to "disarm law-abiding home owners" are about as common and as practical as proposals to dissolve the USA and establish a communist regime here. They are both feverish nightmares designed to cow dimwits into creating chaos- i.e. stampede the herd of gun "enthusiasts" who haven't thought very deeply about the implications of militarizing every corner of society into shutting down the regulation debate.

"Are all reactions good reactions?" Do all people who ask that question want to shut down the debate by insulting people's intelligence, or is that simply a by-product of how they relate to others?

The primary left v right divide here is sensible public gun policy vs. the promotion of the gun market.

On the right, you have a lot of political support from gun manufacturers whos shareholders demand a perpetual increase in their sales volume, as well as from individuals who have fallen for the hoax that jack booted government thugs want to take all their guns and that people need to own military hardware in order to overthrow a US government that could potentially be turned tyrannical in an instant by any Democratic president.

On the left, you have people who are sick and tired of people running around with military killing machines who would normally be deemed unfit to serve, such as criminals and the mentally unstable, and killing lots of people. There is a long established right and precedent in our society to take collective action against things that contribute to the deaths of lots of people without commensurate benefits to society.

The hoax that has been created is that "they're gonna take away all your guns and then you won't be able to defend yourself when the commie liberals take over".

The real question we should be debating is whether we should allow the unregulated distribution of weapons that allow an untrained civilian to rapidly project lethal force into a large number of targets. We already tightly regulate bombs, machine guns, grenades, artillery, tanks, etc. Firearms that automatically reload after every shot are capable of this level of lethality- they are designed to give the advantage in a firefight by allowing multiple rounds to be fired as quickly as an attacker desires, limiting the window for defensive action.

Other firearms that do not automatically reload, such as bolt action rifles, non-automatic shotguns and single action revolvers, would meet virtually all civilian needs of hunting and domestic self defense. Civilians who wish to possess any kind of firearm should pass a background check for criminal activity and violent or suicidal behavior, should be required to maintain training and insurance, and should be required to store and bear their weapon in strict accordance with regulations designed to prevent theft, loss and accidental discharge.

The only answer I have heard as to why we need auto-loading firearms is so we can mount a military-style defense against an invader or our own government. The problem here is that simply owning a bunch of semi-autos will not get you anywhere against a determined invader as they will not fight you on your terms. Allowing random people to own a semi-auto will inevitably allow criminals and the mentally unstable to kill lots and lots of people very little effort. This fails the cost-benefit analysis for society.

If you have a different reason for needing an auto-loading firearm, I have no problem with your establishing that legitimate need, certifying your ability to manage the device, and taking full responsibility for its use as the sole licensed user.

Why not protect society from crazies and criminals with guns AND respect the second amendment at the same time? The only hoax is that we need to chose one or the other.

[gejohnston]

4. while you have some valid points

I disagree with much of what you say. Your stereotype of gun owners are as asinine as the "commie liberal gun grabber" stereotype.
I'm guessing you are basing your opinion on "need" on personal opinion and not from any knowledgeable experts in the area. I two things
there is no dept of needs, nor should there be in a liberal democracy
and I don't take the advice of people who don't know the subject.

I think all cars should be fitted with governors to keep them from going over 75 mph. No one needs a car that goes faster than any posted speed limit. I think ATVs should be illegal because nobody needs them, and they are destructive to the environment. More kids are killed in swimming pool accidents than with guns, people don't need to own swimming pools.

[spirald]

5. My stereotype???

Can you identify my supposed "stereotype of gun owners"? I am unaware that I have stereotyped gun owners as a class of people. Are you responding to some stereotypical argument and not what I actually said?

Nobody is arguing for a dept of needs. Your guess is incorrect, as is your guess that I don't know anything about the subject of guns. Your evasion of the issue and your presentation of pathetic straw men for you to shoot down is evidence that your position is devoid of any logical or moral basis.

By your straw man logic, you deny that any regulation can happen without everything being banned. By this logic one can argue that unless we allow terrorists to have nuclear weapons, we'll all be defenseless sheep who will be quickly slaughtered. Both positions are absurd, and this idiotic black and white logic is nothing more that chickening out of the debate.