Thread: USA Gun Laws Poll

Originally Posted by earcutter

Simply - Yes.

Unfortunately I agree 100% that Canada is at times too PC. I believe it would be considered discriminatory to break crime stats down by ethnic grouping, at least publicly. It would and does make it hard to know where to concentrate limited resources to target the most troublesome areas to achieve the most benefit. If my poor memory serves me correctly, there was an incident years ago where a Toronto police officer made a public statement that stats showed there was a particular ethnic group which had more than it's average share of crime. He was promptly dropped in the Poo for that even though members of that ethnic community singled out said he was absolutely correct in their eyes. I am tired of shaking my head at things like this my brains are scrambled enough as it is. You have to wery wery careful how you say things. I find that hard to do. I was told by a super from another company that I should be more professional so I told him that I was right "professionally" fing POed just incase he misunderstood the first time. I don't like dancing around an issue.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Unfortunately I agree 100% that Canada is at times too PC. I believe it would be considered discriminatory to break crime stats down by ethnic grouping, at least publicly. It would and does make it hard to know where to concentrate limited resources to target the most troublesome areas to achieve the most benefit. If my poor memory serves me correctly, there was an incident years ago where a Toronto police officer made a public statement that stats showed there was a particular ethnic group which had more than it's average share of crime. He was promptly dropped in the Poo for that even though members of that ethnic community singled out said he was absolutely correct in their eyes. I am tired of shaking my head at things like this my brains are scrambled enough as it is. You have to wery wery careful how you say things. I find that hard to do. I was told by a super from another company that I should be more professional so I told him that I was right "professionally" fing POed just incase he misunderstood the first time. I don't like dancing around an issue.

Bob

It's a choice as to if you wish to profile or not. You kind of have to go all in, or not at all. There is no real in between on the issue if you ask me.

Being frank and discussing issues "head-on" is a fantastic way to combat things... but it can lead to a serious loss of freedom if you are targeted.
.... by the same token ....
Being PC and addressing everything as one, is a fantastic way to not subject individuals unequally... but can lead to a serious loss of efficiency.

Serving the public, and serving a corporation that pays you... are two different animals! At work profiling is a means to an end and is done on an ongoing basis.

Dave

Being too PC can just drive the bigots underground and I would rather plainly see them for who they are. Ignoring stats gathered in an unbiased manner just to be PC is just wrong headed as is deliberately not gathering certain stats just to be PC. I did not mean that the Term "professional" meant profiling but rather it means never to be angry and ruffle the waters when in fact they need ruffling at times. Never had a supervisor position but I was sick and tired of my bosses not being able to remedy an ongoing problem with another company that I had to deal with on a continuous basis. All that because they were all running around being "professional" and by doing so were ineffectual in remedying the problem. No sense being nice after a certain point. Being "professional" is being corporate PC.

If stats point to a certain subset in the population as causing more than the average share of trouble that may be profiling in the broadest sense of the word but it does not mean you tar everyone in that subset with the same brush. It ideally means that more effort to correct a problem should be focused there. Unfortunately the bigots use these types of stats to justify their own unfounded prejudices to the whole subset indiscriminately and the backlash to that is to be too PC. Again there is no healthy middle ground.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Dave

Being too PC can just drive the bigots underground and I would rather plainly see them for who they are. Ignoring stats gathered in an unbiased manner just to be PC is just wrong headed as is deliberately not gathering certain stats just to be PC. I did not mean that the Term "professional" meant profiling but rather it means never to be angry and ruffle the waters when in fact they need ruffling at times. Never had a supervisor position but I was sick and tired of my bosses not being able to remedy an ongoing problem with another company that I had to deal with on a continuous basis. All that because they were all running around being "professional" and by doing so were ineffectual in remedying the problem. No sense being nice after a certain point. Being "professional" is being corporate PC.

If stats point to a certain subset in the population as causing more than the average share of trouble that may be profiling in the broadest sense of the word but it does not mean you tar everyone in that subset with the same brush. It ideally means that more effort to correct a problem should be focused there. Unfortunately the bigots use these types of stats to justify their own unfounded prejudices to the whole subset indiscriminately and the backlash to that is to be too PC. Again there is no healthy middle ground.

Bob

Just so you know, we are on the same page Bob. Except you believe the part I highlighted in your post. Unfortunately - at some levels of power, people become things... and I truly believe that that means, that those people who become numbers/things or what have you... are indeed viewed as one an the same as those you are targeting. But that's just me. I have no empirical evidence to support that.

Dave

Yea, you are probably right not tarring everyone with the same brush seems an impossible concept for some. Usually people looking for the easy way out when dealing with something.

Bob

Sticky

Interesting read. Even if you try and practice avoidance of those areas because sooner or later you will be a dumb tourist and wind up where you should not be. Sometime it just finds you no matter what.

Bob

I'm still pro gun and would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 but this is pretty sobering after I typed my zip code in.

A mass shooting happens every FIVE days in America: Interactive map shows how gun violence epidemic sweeping the nation | Mail Online

This has been a very interesting thread.
My views will be much what they were before entering it, but at more than one level, I feel educated by opposing views.
For that I am grateful.
I will, with respect to all posters, bow out of this discussion, and those of the same theme.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I'm still pro gun and would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 but this is pretty sobering after I typed my zip code in.

A mass shooting happens every FIVE days in America: Interactive map shows how gun violence epidemic sweeping the nation | Mail Online

Heh, the good ol daily fail. Always happy to show the people of Britian how lucky they are that they've been disarmed. Unfortunately, I dont think they realized the irony of talking about how dangerous Chicago is, what with it having some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation...

Also, I think many of the non-gang related homicides might be gang related. For instance I looked up the one in Moss point, MS, and that was where someone gunned up a rap concert. That shooting was labeled as non-gang related. Now perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions, and the concert was attacked by a misguided individual who, quite rightfully, feels that rap is a loathsome form of music and should be eradicated, and made the unfortunate decision to take matters into his own hands, but my sneaking suspicion is that the shooting might actually have been gang related... call me crazy if you wish.

Here's the opinion of a rather experienced "BurnedOutLEO" on some of the types of criminals that encourage gun carry and use in the U.S.; and those people are a big reason why more and more states have went with carry licenses/permits. The best part might be the tactics of defense that work against them. For those who are not very street-wise it can be a real eye-opener, or even save some medical bills later. This is a moderately long read, but may be worth the time. If you don't live (or go) somewhere where you might be robbed while out of your home, the link's info is strictly academic.