Police State of the USA/The loss of civil liberties at home

[alexandra]

You guys! What about the big ol' 'Patriot Act'? Jeez - it's all over, dudes. Smile and be merry now...

 

[Hurkyl]

The right to assemble is not the right to "assemble at any place at any time to do any thing".

When searching online for just what the "right to assemble" means, every reference I followed talks about assembling to discuss political issues, public affairs, or for assembling for protests, pickets, et cetera. Even the Bill of Rights itself said:

Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Friendly Immigrant]

Things like this are bound to happen in countries where 50% don't vote. Dysgenics in effect.

 

[MaxS]

The right to assemble is not the right to "assemble at any place at any time to do any thing".

When searching online for just what the "right to assemble" means, every reference I followed talks about assembling to discuss political issues, public affairs, or for assembling for protests, pickets, et cetera. Even the Bill of Rights itself said:

Wow don't be so close minded. According to your interpretation as long as the rave had a government protest theme it would be protected under the constitution. Just stupid, the right to assemble is the right to assemble whether its in protest or not.

 

[Smurf]

Wow don't be so close minded. According to your interpretation as long as the rave had a government protest theme it would be protected under the constitution. Just stupid, the right to assemble is the right to assemble whether its in protest or not.

I'm willing to bet that rave had a protest theme anyways..

 

[Hurkyl]

Wow don't be so close minded. ... Just stupid, the right to assemble is the right to assemble whether its in protest or not.

I would listen if you presented reasons why I should adopt your opinion over the opinion of the courts. You, however, call the legal opinion "stupid" and merely reiterate your opinion. You're calling the wrong person closed-minded.

According to your interpretation as long as the rave had a government protest theme it would be protected under the constitution.

First off, it's not my interpretation. Secondly, only the right to protest would have been protected: other activities would not. Thirdly, even if all they were doing is protesting the government, that would still not be enough: for example, there was a case where the supreme court (unanimously!) upheld a city ordinance requiring a permit for parades and processions on a public street.


And finally, some advice. if you really are afraid of the government taking away your basic rights, then silly grievances like this do more harm than good: everytime someone makes a ridiculous claim of a violation of the bill of rights, it detracts from those who make legitimate claims.

 

[MaxS]

I would listen if you presented reasons why I should adopt your opinion over the opinion of the courts. You, however, call the legal opinion "stupid" and merely reiterate your opinion. You're calling the wrong person closed-minded.




First off, it's not my interpretation. Secondly, only the right to protest would have been protected: other activities would not. Thirdly, even if all they were doing is protesting the government, that would still not be enough: for example, there was a case where the supreme court (unanimously!) upheld a city ordinance requiring a permit for parades and processions on a public street.


And finally, some advice. if you really are afraid of the government taking away your basic rights, then silly grievances like this do more harm than good: everytime someone makes a ridiculous claim of a violation of the bill of rights, it detracts from those who make legitimate claims.

I don't think this is silly in any way. I think these people had their civil rights trampled on and I think its wrong of you to trivialize that.

P.S I know it probably sounded like it but I didn't mean to call you stupid. I was saying that for the rave to be legal it simply needed a protest theme.

 

[Hurkyl]

I didn't think you were calling me stupid, just the law.

Maybe your example is an example of the very principle I mentioned: when I look at it, I see what appears to be *sigh* yet another case of people who got busted for doing something illegal, and then trying to weasel out of it by saying that their rights are being violated. (Or, more generally, rationalizing by others who would participate in such activities) So, I'm more inclined to believe that interpretation given how often I've seen it before, whether or not it's actually the case.


Oh, another thing that has sprung to mind: you've made a big deal about the method of the bust... so how about a hypothetical:

What if the rave had been broken up by unarmed policemen?

Would you still complain that their rights are being violated?

If your answer is no, then I would reassert my statement about silly claims of rights violations.

If your answer is yes, I would like to complain that you would bring the method of the bust into the picture, since it seems the thing it does is emotionally charging the discussion (and provide another issue to distract people from your real issue). It would be more productive to just discuss the issue at hand. (Unless, I suppose, your goal was to rile up a mob, instead of rationally presenting a case)

(Since I'm trying to anticipate your response, I could have, of course, entirely missed some case)

 

[loseyourname]

Yep everything seems in order what was I thinking, boy good old critical thinking.

Okay, if you're just refusing to let go of a point you made because you made it and you've now gotten defensive, I can understand. I do that all the time. It's basic human psychology to refuse to admit an error while still arguing over something. But if you honestly believe that your interpretation of the "right to peaceably assemble for a redress of grievances" is more critically thought out than the Supreme Court's interpretation, and that it should cover people gathering in the middle of the night to throw a party, then I suppose I really don't know what to say to you.

 

[MaxS]

People in this country are supposed to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

If you can't comprehend that I don't know what else to say to you.

 

[Townsend]

People in this country are supposed to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

I agree, that is why I loath anti gun people so much.

 

[MaxS]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country, and guns are equally available, something is wrong with the culture and not the availability of weapons for GI Johnny.

 

[Townsend]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country, and guns are equally available, something is wrong with the culture and not the availability of weapons for GI Johnny.

yep...that is a fact.

 

[Hurkyl]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country,

The homicide rate in the U.S. is high, but you should do the thing properly, rather than quote a meaningless statistic like that.

Why is it meaningless? The variables are not controlled very well. Here are some particular reasons:

How many times more people does the U.S. have than the next country on the list? All other things being equal, we would expect a country with N times the population of another country to have N times as many homicides.

Is 10,000 even a "big" number? 10,000 isn't a big difference if the actual homicide rate was something like 100,000.

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting U.S. is at the top, but the U.S. is way behind the leaders in homicide rates. (WAY behind if you look at the per capita rates)


A meaningful thing you could have said? Maybe that the U.S.'s per capita rate is more than twice many Eurpoean countries.


(However, the U.S.'s per capita homicide rate is actually less than several European countries... in some cases, way behind)


(Misuse if statistics is one of my pet peeves)

 

[Smurf]

How many times more people does the U.S. have than the next country on the list? All other things being equal, we would expect a country with N times the population of another country to have N times as many homicides.

but if it's homocide rate, this wouldn't matter.

 

[MaxS]

The homicide rate in the U.S. is high, but you should do the thing properly, rather than quote a meaningless statistic like that.

Why is it meaningless? The variables are not controlled very well. Here are some particular reasons:

How many times more people does the U.S. have than the next country on the list? All other things being equal, we would expect a country with N times the population of another country to have N times as many homicides.

Is 10,000 even a "big" number? 10,000 isn't a big difference if the actual homicide rate was something like 100,000.

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting U.S. is at the top, but the U.S. is way behind the leaders in homicide rates. (WAY behind if you look at the per capita rates)


A meaningful thing you could have said? Maybe that the U.S.'s per capita rate is more than twice many Eurpoean countries.


(However, the U.S.'s per capita homicide rate is actually less than several European countries... in some cases, way behind)


(Misuse if statistics is one of my pet peeves)

The statistics I used are not misleading in any way. In fact you have "analyzed" them in such a way as to make them misleading all by yourself.

I don't have the patience to dig up the actual numbers but you can do so yourself.

Here are the (approximate) statistics (which does not mean they are at all wrong but that i don't know the EXACT TO THE PERSON number of homicides by heart)


Firstly: The United States has the most homicides per year of any other country in the world. Period.

The number is not in the hundreds of thousands. In fact it is something like 10,700+ homicides every year in the United States. If memory serves correctly the next leading country is either Germany or England, with something like 1000+ homicides per year.

This is not a per capita or percentage based statistic. It is simply the raw number of homicides every year.

Which by the way is an insanely high number, especially considering we are a country of only a few hundred million.

As for expecting that N country with N times the population would have N times the number of homicides, you are very and obviously wrong. One should not apply the laws of mathematics when analyzing cultures or human motives, just a piece of advice; as doing so will certainly serve to mislead you, as it has here.

 

[The Smoking Man]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country, and guns are equally available, something is wrong with the culture and not the availability of weapons for GI Johnny.

yep...that is a fact.yep...that is a fact.

I agree.

Keep the guns.

Ban Americans.

 

[MaxS]

LOL Now I know you get sensitive about China TSM and I'm not too far from agreeing with what you just said, but I would be far more afraid of Chinese sentiments (with regards to a majority of the population considering the slaughter of women and children acceptable in a war etc.) and the highly charged nationalistic zeitgeist (though I can't say the U.S. is far off from acheiving similar levels of nationalistic fervor).

 

[The Smoking Man]

LOL Now I know you get sensitive about China TSM and I'm not too far from agreeing with what you just said, but I would be far more afraid of Chinese sentiments (with regards to a majority of the population considering the slaughter of women and children acceptable in a war etc.) and the highly charged nationalistic zeitgeist (though I can't say the U.S. is far off from acheiving similar levels of nationalistic fervor).

Hence the need for that tongue-in-Cheek smiley.

I was being absurd because the excuse is absurd.

 

[champ2823]

Well, how many of those homicide's involved guns bought legally and registered? I don't have the stats on me but I do know that the vast majority are guns that were bought on the black market. BTW, I think per capita is a much better way to run statistics than overall numbers. And overall, deaths due to guns is nowhere near deaths due to prescription drugs and medical malpractice.

 

[Archon]

People in this country are supposed to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

You mean like exterminate endangered species, walk around naked, burn down empty buildings, and drive drunk (as long as you don't crash)?

Or are you trying to say, for instance, that big corporations shouldn't do anything that resembles taking advantage of consumers?

If you can't comprehend that I don't know what else to say to you.

You haven't defined "harm." Until you do, this statement is just vague enough to be useless. When have you been harmed? Is it when you lose two dollars because some company has marked up prices for its own profit, or when you are injured by other people's actions, or when the potential for such injury exists?

 

[Townsend]

Hence the need for that tongue-in-Cheek smiley.

I was being absurd because the excuse is absurd.

I don't understand what you mean. Seriously, I don't want to be a prick or anything, I just don't understand what you mean... And could you please just explain what you mean for me? I hate it when you answer by posting a half dozen links that are suppose to answer a simple question...

 

[Archon]

I agree, that is why I loath anti gun people so much.

Think of it this way. We illegalize drunk driving because it endangers other people. These laws don't stop everyone from driving drunk, but you don't see people clamoring to legalize drunk driving. This is because drunk driving kills people. Guns are like this too, except they are used to kill people on purpose. Now tell me: what are the drawbacks of banning guns?

 

[Archon]

I agree.

Keep the guns.

Ban Americans.

Actually, this wouldn't be such a bad solution...

 

[MaxS]

Archon you are missing the point. Many countries have easily accessible weapons besides the US, but have no where near as many murders - due to guns or otherwise.

Obviously then guns are not the problem. You can't blame a murder on the weapon, just like you can't blame it on video games.

 

[Townsend]

Actually, this wouldn't be such a bad solution...

So why stop there? Let's ban Chinese, French, ... Let's face it, the world is a safer place without people around.

 

[Archon]

So why stop there? Let's ban Chinese, French, ... Let's face it, the world is a safer place without people around.

As long as I get to stay.

 

[Townsend]

Archon you are missing the point. Many countries have easily accessible weapons besides the US, but have no where near as many murders - due to guns or otherwise.

Obviously then guns are not the problem. You can't blame a murder on the weapon, just like you can't blame it on video games.

If you want to place blame on the weapon that does the killing then what right does anyone have to own a car, truck, SUV? They kill and injure more people than guns...by a lot too.

 

[Townsend]

As long as I get to stay.

No, you're even a danger to yourself, sorry you will have to go too...but be happy, it is for the greater good

 

[Hurkyl]

The statistics I used are not misleading in any way. In fact you have "analyzed" them in such a way as to make them misleading all by yourself.

I made the mistake of filling in the gap in your argument -- I have just called you on it. Despite popular opinion, numbers do not speak for themselves. Saying that there are 10,000 more homicides in the U.S. than the next person on the list is absolutely meaningless until you connect the dots and arrive at the conclusion you wish to make.

And I assert that from this statistic alone, it is impossible to (correctly) deduce any "interesting" conclusion.

I don't have the patience to dig up the actual numbers but you can do so yourself.

I did yesterday. I couldn't find all of the facts I was looking for, but I found enough: International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001 has a table of European nations, and a few others. (the biggest omission is South American countries... if I recall correctly, Colombia is actually far and away the leader in this sort of thing)

Some examples in particular:

Homicides recorded by U.S. police in 2001: 15,980 (5.56 per 100,000)
In Russia: 33,583 (22.05 per 100,000)
In South Africa (2000): 21,683 (55.86 per 100,000)
In Lithuania: 378 (10.62 per 100,000)

As for expecting that N country with N times the population would have N times the number of homicides, you are very and obviously wrong. One should not apply the laws of mathematics when analyzing cultures or human motives, just a piece of advice; as doing so will certainly serve to mislead you, as it has here.

Pot to kettle: you were trying to use mathematics (in particular, a statistic) to analyze cultures and human motives. However I'm not analyzing cultures, or human motives: I'm analyzing a statistic.

Here's a little hypothetical to explain how this works:

Suppose there are three isolated islands that have a population of 1,000,000, and are identical in every possible way.

Now, I gather two statistics:
(1) On the first island, there are 10 murders every year.
(2) On the other two islands put together, there are 20 murders every year.
(Do you see why the second one would be 20?)

and I publish the statistic:
"There are 10 more murders per year on the other two islands put together than there are on the first island!"

Would I be correct in concluding that the other two islands put together have some sort of problem that leads to a greater homicide rate? Of course I would not, because the islands are identical in every possible way.


Here's another hypothetical example:

There is a small hamlet of 10 people that had 5 homicides last year.
There is a large city of 1,000,000 people that had 20 homicides last year.

Despite the fact the city had four times as many homicides last year, it should be clear that homicide was a much greater problem for the small hamlet! (Half of its residents were killed in a homicide!)


As I had mentioned, the per capita rate is a much better statistic, because it factors in any discreptancies due to a mismatch in the populations of the countries being compared. In the first example, both statistics would read "1 murder per 100,000 people", and we get the correct conclusion that neither grouping has a greater homicide problem. In the second example, we find that the hamlet had 50,000 homicides per 100,000, while the city had 2 per 100,000, showing just how tremendously different the problems they had are!

It's still not the perfect statistic, of course: what I would really like to know is a breakdown of the per capita homicide rate by demographic, particularly urban vs suburban vs rural, but I don't know if one could get a hold of such figures.

 

[Hurkyl]

As long as I get to stay.

Just don't break your glasses.

 

[Archon]

Archon you are missing the point. Many countries have easily accessible weapons besides the US, but have no where near as many murders - due to guns or otherwise.

Obviously then guns are not the problem. You can't blame a murder on the weapon, just like you can't blame it on video games.

Like people are saying, you really need a per capita number to compare different countries, because of the differences in population. Anyway, what do you propose? Your solution appears to involve keeping guns completely legal and ignoring the problem. You're not going to change a murderer's mind with respect to violence, and you aren't going to radically alter American culture. So what's the plan?

This is interesting:

The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other (industrialized) countries combined

http://www.qconline.com/qcrgl/children.html
I suppose this is because the children buy guns on the black market and then accidentally shoot themselves, right? Isn't this the sort of thing that would be largely prevented by a ban on guns?

 

[Townsend]

This is interesting:

http://www.qconline.com/qcrgl/children.html
I suppose this is because the children buy guns on the black market and then accidentally shoot themselves, right? Isn't this the sort of thing that would be largely prevented by a ban on guns?

Could anyone tell me how many kids were killed by cars last year? How many kids died of knives? How many died of falling off of roofs? How many died of...the list goes on but in each case it has to do with the parents neglecting their kids. So I guess we should just ban parents right?

Kids will die with or without guns...what do plan to do to protect the kids that are killed by something other than guns? Are you just going to ignore the real problem and believe that banning guns will fix the problem?

 

[Archon]

Could anyone tell me how many kids were killed by cars last year? How many kids died of knives? How many died of falling off of roofs? How many died of...the list goes on but in each case it has to do with the parents neglecting their kids. So I guess we should just ban parents right?

Kids will die with or without guns...what do plan to do to protect the kids that are killed by something other than guns? Are you just going to ignore the real problem and believe that banning guns will fix the problem?

I'm not talking about cars, knives, or anything else. I'm talking about guns. Guns needlessly kill children each year, because these children find the guns and are curious. If people weren't allowed to have guns, fewer children would kill themselves accidentally (unless, of course, you actually believe that all children are depraved maniacs constantly looking for the chance to find a gun and use it on themselves).

The real problem isn't that children can die as a result of many different things. The problem is that they can kill themselves with guns they find in their parents' closet, which wouldn't be there if guns were illegal.

 

[Townsend]

I'm not talking about cars, knives, or anything else. I'm talking about guns. Guns needlessly kill children each year, because these children find the guns and are curious. If people weren't allowed to have guns, fewer children would kill themselves accidentally (unless, of course, you actually believe that all children are depraved maniacs constantly looking for the chance to find a gun and use it on themselves).

The real problem isn't that children can die as a result of many different things. The problem is that they can kill themselves with guns they find in their parents' closet, which wouldn't be there if guns were illegal.

So all the other ways for kids to die are ok with you then?

I want to know why you are singling out guns and ignoring everything else that kill kids too? If there were no cars, trucks or SUVs a lot more kids could be saved then by eliminating guns so why are you just picking on guns?

You don't care about saving kids at all. Clearly all you care about is keeping law abiding people who have never committed a crime or hurt anyone from enjoying a safe sport. Mean while the real problem goes on untreated because people don't seem to care what the real problem is.

If you want to save lives why not start with the what kills the most?
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Looks like we need to outlaw cross walks now doesn't it?