Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Reasons to be Armed 21

Journal by pudge

Regarding a 76ers Tickets For Guns program, the Philadelphia police commissioner gave law-abiding citizens an excellent reason to remain armed:

Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson said the program wasn't only for illegal guns. He would be happy if law-abiding citizens turned in their firearms, too.

"Any gun that can kill needs to be taken off the streets," Johnson said.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reasons to be Armed More

Reasons to be Armed

Comments Filter:
  • For a private citizen who has chosen to purchase a gun, where is the value in exchanging the weapon for a voucher for tickets? From what I could find, seats for a 76ers game run from $10 (nosebleed, I assume) to nearly $300. Gun prices sure don't come as low as $10 very often - and most of those I've looked at (even used ones) are easily over $300 for just the gun. That's not including ammunition, cleaning supplies, range time and equipment, licensing, etc. The program makes no sense except as a cheap m
    • For a private citizen who has chosen to purchase a gun, where is the value in exchanging the weapon for a voucher for tickets? From what I could find, seats for a 76ers game run from $10 (nosebleed, I assume) to nearly $300. Gun prices sure don't come as low as $10 very often - and most of those I've looked at (even used ones) are easily over $300 for just the gun.

      Well, yeah, most people won't do it. But the commissioner expressed the hope that they would, regardless, which is what bothers me: any law enfo
      • any law enforcement official who prefers a disarmed public is, in my opinion, absolutely unfit for duty.

        Why? It is a personal preference. It isn't like he is confiscating guns.
        • Why? It is a personal preference. It isn't like he is confiscating guns.

          To me, it's like having a legislator who doesn't personally believe in the right to vote for representation, or a judge who doesn't personally believe in the right to a fair trial. Sure, on the one hand, you could say as long as they don't take actions to abridge that right, what's the harm? But I think the harm is greater than any specific acts he may take, but in a subtle subversion of those rights.

          Bottom line, I don't want someone
          • To me, it's like having a legislator who doesn't personally believe in the right to vote for representation

            That's funny. The Republican legislators in Utah are trying to get rid of direct election of US senators and go back to having them select them.
            • The Republican legislators in Utah are trying to get rid of direct election of US senators and go back to having them select them.

              I am greatly in favor of that. But that is not a vote against representation, any more than the original Constitution itself was against representation (well, except in regard to slaves of course). It's just another type of representation. What I am talking about is being against representation itself, not being against it in a particular form.

              If you want to discuss direct ele
              • I really don't want to discuss direct election of senators, which I know is a pet topic of yours, other than to point out that everybody from the police to legislators makes these sorts of small power grabs. My point is that there shouldn't be some sort of litmus test of beliefs in order to be a police officer as long as the officer is willing to uphold the law.
                • My point is that there shouldn't be some sort of litmus test of beliefs in order to be a police officer as long as the officer is willing to uphold the law.

                  Not sure what you mean by "should not." People "should" be allowed to favor or oppose people for any reason they wish. If mine reason for opposition is that the person in question is opposed to the citizenry having a direct check against his power, well, there are far worse reasons out there to be opposed to someone. :-)
                  • You're as entitled to your opinion as he is to his. I should have been clearer. He should not be removed from his position simply because in your mind his opinions make him unfit for it.
                    • If the people have the legal authority to remove him, I'd support the effort. And if it is an appointed position, then I'd support the mayor (or whomever) firing him.
                    • So the difference between you and him is that you support him being forcibly removed from office for his opinion while he supports people voluntarily deciding to not bear arms with no consequence if you disagree with him?
                    • So the difference between you and him is that you support him being forcibly removed from office for his opinion while he supports people voluntarily deciding to not bear arms with no consequence if you disagree with him?

                      No. The difference is I fully support the Constitutional rights of the people, and he does not.
                    • I fail to see what is disagreeable about my statement. Yours however seems inaccurate given that he doesn't seem to be taking away any rights.
                    • I fail to see what is disagreeable about my statement.

                      You tried to make it seem like I was doing something worse than him, when I am not the one advocating taking away anyone's rights or violating any law or principle, and he is.

                      Yours however seems inaccurate given that he doesn't seem to be taking away any rights.

                      As I never said he is taking away any rights -- only that he wishes those rights to be removed -- I don't see how this has any bearing on the accuracy of my statement.
                    • As I never said he is taking away any rights -- only that he wishes those rights to be removed

                      I've read the article and I don't see this in it. Where is he advocating a repeal of the 2nd ammendment? Where is he asking for a right to be taken away? What law does he want violated?

                      He could have just as easily said that he wished that people would voluntarily not drink. Would he then be advocating the return of prohibition?

                      I'm not trying to cast you as better or worse than him. Just trying to make a disti
                    • Where is he advocating a repeal of the 2nd ammendment?

                      I see. You missed the part where he said, "Any gun that can kill needs to be taken off the streets."

                      Where is he asking for a right to be taken away?

                      See above.

                      What law does he want violated?

                      I left his options open: maybe he does not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but just wants it to be violated.

                      He could have just as easily said that he wished that people would voluntarily not drink.

                      But he was not talking about being voluntary. He is the chief of pol

    • where is the value in exchanging the weapon for a voucher for tickets?

      It sounds like a safe and easy way to fence a stolen gun. It would also be nice to get something for a gun that you had to get rid of anyway, for example if your gun had been used in a crime.

      This is of course presuming the police don't require you to identify yourself to exchange your gun, or associate your gun with your voucher ot ticket so they can find you. Of course if they did that, they really couldn't expect the program to

  • Definitely a good reason to have a rifle, at least when skiing.

    Anyway, the Freakonomics guys proved pretty conclusively that these sorts of gun buybacks are useless. Popular, but useless. Kind of like community policing in an era of Compstat.

    • What a site yesterday: the U.S. way in the lead for the first leg of the 4x7.5km biathlon relay. Amazing. Jay Hakkinen was one split bullet away from a medal in (IIRC) the 20k, and in the sprint he had another good chance at a medal, but he had an amazing set of mistakes: first he missed a few shots, then he adjusted his sight the wrong way, and missed by even more. He missed all five, giving him five penalty loops. And to add insult to injury, he lost count, and skiied SIX loops instead of five.

      But he
    • Beyond just useless, I have heard of instances where they actually increase crime. Criminals want the freebie so they break into homes looking for guns to steal and turn in.

Slashdot Top Deals

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.

Close