The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I'd say no need to have a weapon in your home for that. Locked up at the shooting range is all you need.

Although not even here in Germany we have a law that strict. After the last School shooting in 2009 the law was made more strict one last time. There was a serious discussion to really force people to only have guns at shooting ranges, but in the end the comprise was made to have randomized surprise security checks for gun owners. So if you own a gun you have to accept that there is a chance the police randomly may visit you and check that your gun is locked away in a secure way. This law mainly is this way because the school shooting of 2009 was caused by a young man who took the inappropriately (read: it was lying around unlocked next to his fathers bed) stored gun of his father.

That sort of government oppression is the exact crap that Americans don't want. We want the government out of our lives. And, if you look at past shootings, most have taken place in gun-free environments. Virginia Tech, as an example, has had 2.5 school shootings in ten years and force students to register/store their firearms at the police station.

Do you go to Virginia Tech?

Again amazed at how different your view is. In my view the by far biggest threat in terms of government oppression is the crazy desire for security that "to protect from terrorism" is eating away all freedom at an alarming rate, slowly turning our nations into surveillance states. No month goes by without some new crazy politician coming up with one more freedom to take away or one more way to improve total surveillance of the population.
They track every movement you make, track every social contact you have, put you on a list of potential terror subjects if you happen to have the wrong name or talk to the wrong people, they use secret judge decisions to overrule all laws that you think bind them, but you only seem to care about your gun ownership to protect yourself from imaginary enemies.
You gun won't protect you when one day somebody in your government decides that you're a terrorist and they come and take you away.
Well at least you can make a last stand like an action hero

Putting heavy regulations on tools designed for murder however is something I do not perceive as government oppression. It's a logical thing to do, as there should be no need for such tools in our society. What we need is working backdoor-free encryption technology and a healthy concept of privacy.

In a way we might feel the same thing to different demands:
"Disallow encryption technology"
"Disallow firearms"

It's extremely hard to balance security and privacy when citizens value both equally. Pushing one side to the extreme might be a good way to solve the problem, but it also might be disastrous. Again, it's still like a huge company.

I won't say my opinion on this highly vague topic because I don't have a good answer.

I don't see how the topic is vague anymore after the recent years.
I also do dare to say I value privacy and the benefit of the doubt (setting up systems to track all meta data on all communication is basically saying: By default you're all criminals, proof your innocence) above total security. Security is a dreamy thing that never can come really true. Life is a pretty risky thing and the believe into total control to make it more secure just plays in the hand of anti-democratic forces that are very hungry for more control.

In the last years in political discussions in Germany on the topic it has become visible again and again that politics believes in total security through total surveillance. Some German politics stated things like "security is a super basic right that stands above all other basic rights" to justify surveillance laws.

Also "huge company": Just because something is big and complex doesn't mean it is the same as a huge company. Companies still are out just to make as much profit as possible and nothing else. You don't mean that is the task of the state do you? Make money?

I have never understood these arguments. If life is insecure, which is definitely agreeable, then why not strive to make it more secure? It's like the "life is not fair" argument. And the message received by people is totally meaningless to me. I could care less if the government looks at my stuff because I don't have anything to hide even if it comes accross as: "f8ck you, we're going to look at your stuff because you want security and we don't want more dead people". But this is where we start getting into the pure opinion related stuff and violation of the constitutional rights/liberties, so it's probably best to stay away from that lol

I'd say that's the only thing that potentially disqualifies America as a large corporation. For the most part it definitely is like a company. But srsly, doesn't matter.

It really is genuinely depressing that you see society as some lawless wasteland out to get you.

You know why I feel safe when I go out? Because it's incredibly unlikely anyone near me has a GUN strapped to their leg. Literally the only place I've ever felt unsafe in Australia was when I was in the city at night. And my worry was some drunk arsehole throwing a beer bottle at me, not firearms. And in response to the drunken incidents that kept happening, you know what what the state did? LEGISLATION. Bars MUST serve you water for free, CANNOT serve you after 2am or whatever it is, plus a heavier police presence. Sure it still happens, but attempting to reduce anything to zero is an exercise in futility.

It's INCREDIBLY strange to me that the American mindset seems to completely forget that the police force exists, at all. "Ooh people doing bad things will have guns anyway" yeah maybe but it's the job of the police to minimize that as much as possible and the rest of civilization manages it pretty damn well.

Mind you if I ever did move to the US I'd definitely buy a gun. Because if everyone around me has one, I'd be stupid not to. Which is also probably the reason US cops seem so trigger-happy.

You said you value "freedom" and you're afraid of Bernie to hurt your democrazy. All while your current government eats up all the freedom you have in the name of security.
Sanders isnt gonna take away your freedom. The NSA might do it.

This sums up a lot of my personal stance.

I don't like violence, but if I were in a violent situation (I play water polo, but that's an aside, and everything in the pool is usually clean enough ) a gun is the only thing I can't fight off. Guns cause situations, gun-based psychology might possibly somehow perhaps prevent one. By the threat of causing one first.

The only prevention a gun affords you is the ability to shoot the other person dead first.

See: back to point about lawless wasteland out of get you.

We don't forget - we just accept the reality that they aren't omnipresent. And I'm not scared or paranoid of some guy with a gun all the time - me carrying or concealed carrying would keep me safe from knife attacks or armed robberies, too. And it's not a lawless wasteland. This is a civilized America where some people are desperate/have questionable moral standards. Europe and Australia have the same issues, even if you don't personally see them everyday.

I've never been robbed, or assaulted - but I've spoken with people who have. It's honestly so much better to be prepared than anything else. I've walked the streets of my hometown where single mothers try to eke out a living in the shadows, and fatherless boys do crazy stuff like making homemade bombs or robbing stores to get by. It's brutal, but the issue isn't guns or capitalism, it's the moral standard taught to our kids from day one. If abandoning a partner after an accidental kid or marriage was considered taboo, we'd be so much better off. Less assholes.

Cops in the USA aren't necessarily trigger happy. They have specific training that basically says to use the gun if they find themselves in an untenable situation where they or someone else may get injured/killed by the suspect's actions. Basically, it's there so they can win in situations where they would otherwise lose control. We definitely use it as an option more than everyone else around the globe, but that's also from a long history of organized crime. If our police didn't have guns, for example, Chicago would have been overrun by criminals years ago.

prepared for the psychological trauma of having killed someone you mean? no? damn...

I thought that's what you meant.

I am worried about the state of your mental health if you readily walk around and kill people without the slightest bit of internal turmoil, though.

This is the only thing that I think is just incorrect. The police tend to show up after an event has occurred, they're not gods that can stop random crimes from happening in the first place. There are many other factors that affect this too.

I don't know anyone that wants to be a cop because they're treated like **** by the population and they don't get paid well. In some ways I'm glad police brutality is real because it sends a message to the people who want to commit their next crime: "don't f8cking commit a crime!". Obviously the killings are bad though and those can't be justified easily.

I mean, if a police force is a product of imperfect societies, then police brutality is a product of the shitty people in those societies.

Searches, raids, pat-downs etc. are all preventative measures which stop someone from committing a crime.

Indeed, but what about street rape? Or drive-bys?

The combination of good police work and a good education and social system (free college...) means:
a) It is clear to people that if they commit in crime they'll not get away.
b) People have a chance to do something with their life.

Obviously if you have only little social help for people in a bad spot and weapons easily available you're bound to end up in the "fight for your life"-wasteland scenario that mered seems to perceive around him.

In general at the most basic level our stances our different like this:

You: "The world is a dangerous place and I want my security enforced by lethal violence. Better somebody else bites the dust than me."
Me: "The world is a dangerous place, let's check why people become criminals/terrorists and help them find a better way to live their life."

You demand guns and war on terror for your stance.
I demand a social state that helps people in a bad spot for mine.

I acknowledge short term just shooting everyone who looks at you the wrong way might make you feel safe, but long term you'll always have tons of enemies that way.

Now, I'm not in college yet, but afaik it doesn't explicitly teach common sense. College in America is designed for people that work very hard to get into. I'm not saying that other countries don't require hard work, but you literally need to spend the majority of your youth studying and working to get into a college like Harvard or MIT (and have an IQ above 140). I just want to link this post because it's a good read and stays almost perfectly to objective data. Who would want to go to a community college when they could go to Harvard for free? Who would want to be a doctor when they could get paid the same being a trashman? (extreme example, not meant to be taken literally :/ )

EDIT: Also thinking of community college, community colleges provide cheap prices for a decent education, something that is already close to free college.

patrols. jailing (for repeat offenses)

it does. despite you or anyone else's ability to fight against it, it has this amazing property of breaking through and finally chasing out the dumb.