Nice safe world we live in...

[BoarSpear]

Just curious, why only 20 rounds of ammo?

Because 20 rounds are more than enough...its all about tactics. Ever hear of the liberator handgun?

[Hardball]

Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition

Being the gunaholic that I am, I did a google on this rifle. I've always heard the name but decided to research it for myself. I had guessed a semi auto with detachable clip but as you know it's a bolt action. Reminds me a lot of the Lee Enfield .303 British. The Military ammo for the Mauser even resembles the .303 British.

[Hardball]

That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes... "If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT , Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Wiemar Republic." ~Aaron Zelman~ (founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)

Just curious, why only 20 rounds of ammo?

[Uke]

So basically, I dont agree with your view that society is giving cops a specialization of human quality over "bravery and strength" there is no way a society can ever completely give something like this up, because then they become organic, and you cant ever be completely organic without everything going to shit.

I don't think that Judo Jibboo was speaking in absolutes, but he made a strong point. Society, to a large degree, has delegated matters of virtue and bravery to the police. The laws in their own way foster that behavior. What do they call a citizen who saves an old lady from getting hit by a bus? They call him a hero. What do they call a man who sees a rape taking place, pulls out his gun and shoots the rapist(s)? They call him a vigilante, and the term in itself has become synonymous with unlawful violence. Vigilantes are almost never thought of as heroes, and are usually persecuted by the law. Often times vigilantes tend to be former victims who exercise lethal force in situations where juries tend to feel that there were other options than violence.

Today's society has tried to encourage the idea that we are somehow socially evolved to a point where violence is never a necessity, and when violence manifests itself we are to believe that there are agencies that are "qualified" to handle it. It is specialized, almost like a dog catcher. How many times have you walked down the street and felt fear because you spotted a stray rottweiler or mean looking pitbull? We all know that stray dogs can be dangerous, especially to little children, but how many of us patrol the community to round all of them up? Most people call animal control. The same thing goes for crime.

The problem with Police is that they don't always follow the guidelines and the procedures that are set for them to follow. Many times, they tend to fall into the mob mentality where they attempt to dish out their own justice instead of letting the courts do their job. They are the real vigilantes.

Society has given police specialization over the initiative to take action and use force. I wouldn't necessarily use the terms "bravery" or "strength". This is undeniably true because it has become illegal in most cases for anyone but the police to use force. If you shoot a man who has entered your home, you may do time. If you chase a guy who has snatched a purse and hurt him, you may do time or be sued, or both. When police use unlawful force and measures, the majority of the time they go unpunished or at least not punished to the same degree that a citizen would be. And if you try to challenge or deny police the power to exercise a level of force that is at their discretion, you may be beaten unmercifully or killed.

Its conditioning. The people are made to fear the force from police AND the ramifications of the law if they act. And somewhere down the line, they've gotten people to believe that this is what we've wanted all along. If people(police) followed procedure as it is written, it would all work out well. But that's a perfect world. A world can't be perfect with people in it.

[SamuraiGuy]

Exactly. I've had quite a few arguments with friends over this . Societies, as Socrates pointed out and as far as i know no one has bothered to argue since, are based around delegating tasks so that each man and woman can specialize. if you have to farm your own food, build and upkeep your own house, make your own tools, weave your own clothes and on and on, then you aren't going to have much time for anything else. so we have farmers, blacksmiths, blah blah blah, and we all share and trade. The problem is, this principle has been over-extended from labour into basic human qualities. By delegating the virtues of bravery and strength to one group, i.e. cops, it is implied on a subconscious level that "that's not my job anymore." This is the state of affairs that leads to stories like we've all heard of a woman being raped an murdered in an alley in broad daylight with people walking right by.

What your talking about here is simply Organic and Mechanical solidarity, and MANY social theorists have argued and debated, and researched these phenomenons since socrates.

Mechanical Solidarity is when you have a low division of labour, which would be the, I build my own house, raise my own cows, make my own clothes, type of society.

Organic Solidarity, which is closer to the society we live in today, has a high degree of specialization in labour. Notice how we dont have "handymen" anymore, but rather a specific plumber, a specific carpenter, a specific cabinet maker... etc.... Or just look at the medical field, countless specializations there.

The point is societies are never mechanical or organic, rather they constantly shift towards one end of the spectrum, generally as societies become more advanced, it shifts towards the organic side of things.


Where this comes into play is in what happens when a society becomes too organic, to borrow a word from the work of Durkheim (one of those guys after socrates), and a principle later adapted by Merton, when this happens the state goes into a state of "anomie" or it becomes Anomic and cant function.

Our society is loosely based on contracts, just look at currency, are several pieces of paper really worth a car? They are because we agree they are, but when something happens, natural disaster, war, famine, etc... or when a society leans too much towards the organic side, society becomes Anomic, no one feels they have to honor these contracts, and society is thrown into chaos.

So basically, I dont agree with your view that society is giving cops a specialization of human quality over "bravery and strength" there is no way a society can ever completely give something like this up, because then they become organic, and you cant ever be completely organic without everything going to shit.



(as an aside I didnt plan on writing a fricking thesis paper, thats kinda just how it came out)

[BoarSpear]

Well, it would be a different world. Could you imagine robbing someone at gunpoint on a train and then every other passenger pulled out a gun on you! Imagine someone trying to mug a old woman and then everyone on the street took notice and gave chase! That would be a great site.

That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes... "If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT , Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Wiemar Republic." ~Aaron Zelman~ (founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)

[Uke]

Damn. Another excellent post!

Exactly. I've had quite a few arguments with friends over this . Societies, as Socrates pointed out and as far as i know no one has bothered to argue since, are based around delegating tasks so that each man and woman can specialize. if you have to farm your own food, build and upkeep your own house, make your own tools, weave your own clothes and on and on, then you aren't going to have much time for anything else. so we have farmers, blacksmiths, blah blah blah, and we all share and trade. The problem is, this principle has been over-extended from labour into basic human qualities. By delegating the virtues of bravery and strength to one group, i.e. cops, it is implied on a subconscious level that "that's not my job anymore." This is the state of affairs that leads to stories like we've all heard of a woman being raped an murdered in an alley in broad daylight with people walking right by.

Basically what you were saying was the world we live in today has less communities and more people occupying the same land but leading completely separate lives. Men and women can live next door to people for 10 years and not know their own neighbors which just 100 years ago was unheard of. People today value their privacy much more than the ties that bind a people together making them tribes, villages or clans. And because people's focus have shifted from survival to money, the burden of dealing with the factors that threaten society are cast aside, assumed by most that the "authorities" will deal with any dangers. This has lead to an unbelievable drop in preparedness, and a decline in the will to act when life demands it. It used to be that a community was strong because they had to work to survive, not just to get up to go to work to pay bills.

but you're right, this is an interesting situation. i think it's fairly clear that the cop would be in the wrong here by not identifying himself. so that answer is rather easy, but your scenario raises more important questions. the fact that this scenario actually happens is proof of what you alluded to earlier when you said if we behaved as cops wanted us to we would let carjackers walk right up to our cars and shoot us. they want us to be meek and pliable whenever force is threatened. apparently, by their logic they shouldn't have to state that they're a cop, it's enough that they have a gun!!

In a way, we are meek and pliable. We are forced to second guess our instincts which automatically diminishes the natural animal in us. We consider and contemplate at times when action is the most natural and logical response. As soon as we are old enough to comprehend, we are made to believe that cops are our friends. We are made to believe that we MUST obey and trust a cops judgement. We are programmed not to respect but to FEAR the uniform and what it represents. What memories do you have of cops? Who do you remember them protecting or serving? Have you seen it or have you just heard about it in the media? Cops don't even pretend to be helpful anymore. Their main goal is to keep themselves safe, intimidate and control, even if it means stepping outside the parameters of their authority. They've become arrogant in their roles and it shows. Why else would they feel so comfortable not identifying themselves, knowing very well that without doing so they will be taken as common muggers? They have extensive training in the academy and beyond, yet they still in this day and age continue to pull their firearms without properly identifying themselves.

An argument could be made that cops who do that have an agenda. A solid argument could be made that the guy that those cops mistook gregimotis for was someone that they knew who had crossed them and they wanted him to react in defense to justify shooting him. If you think about it, doesn't it make more sense to believe that cops who fail to identify themselves have personal agendas than to believe that they go through all that training only to forget the most important step? They sure remember to pull their firearms. And if they aren't there to deal with someone reported to be armed and dangerous, why is it that they always remember to aim a lethal weapon, but fail to identify themselves which in more instances than not would deescalate the situation?

But we can't accurately assess the statistics because in EVERY instance of a shooting like the Bell murder where 43 shots were discharged, the cops always lie and state that they identified themselves. And like I mentioned earlier, unless someone caught the incident on tape with sound, there's just no way to prove that they didn't. We have to take their word for it.

But for those who believe that police don't lie and don't behave like the criminals that they're supposed to be protecting us from, just take a long hard look at the Abner Louima case. They beat the man, kicked him in the groin and arrested Louima. The officers then handcuffed Louima and brought him in to the precinct. They then took him to the bathroom, held him tight so that he could not resist, and knocked his teeth out with a wooden plunger handle. The beating continued. They then took the same plunger and rammed it up his rectum repeatedly, damaging internal organs. I have heard so many people express their belief that he MUST have done something to deserve that, but its only because of their lack of empathy that would allow them to imagine themselves in his place. Their lack of empathy stems from lack of community and a false belief in the altruism of law enforcement.

In the one intense, terrifying moment that most of us will hopefully never experience, when we need a cop for the only time in our lives, the vast likelihood is that there won't be one to be found for a mile, and you may find yourself quickly transitioning from hoping for a cop to hoping the ambulance will get there in time.

A very true statement.

But what if every man and woman who was so inclined could carry the weapon of their choice? how many robberies would go down if the robber didn't have to look over his shoulder only to assure himself that there was no cop in sight, but had to wonder to himself if the grandma in the corner had a glock in her purse, and how fast the man a few yards away (the man with a strangely unsettling confidence to the way he carried himself) could close the distance if he happened to carry a tonfa and the will to swing it?
i can't answer that question. the world would be different, that's for sure, but more violent? less violent? filled with more or less fear than it is now? again, i can't tell you, but i can tell you for damn sure that airplanes would not be hijacked with box-cutters...

Well, it would be a different world. Could you imagine robbing someone at gunpoint on a train and then every other passenger pulled out a gun on you! Imagine someone trying to mug a old woman and then everyone on the street took notice and gave chase! That would be a great site.

Again, great dialogue.

[Hardball]

Highlight, delete and save. or just hit delete.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

try the edit function?

yea i couldn't figure out how to just delete it

[Hardball]

double posted

try the edit function?

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

double posted

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

Another excellent reply, Judo_Jibboo. What I've come to realize is that we as citizens are so conditioned to the force that the uniform represents that most will hesitate even when the time to act is right smack in front of them.

Exactly. I've had quite a few arguments with friends over this . Societies, as Socrates pointed out and as far as i know no one has bothered to argue since, are based around delegating tasks so that each man and woman can specialize. if you have to farm your own food, build and upkeep your own house, make your own tools, weave your own clothes and on and on, then you aren't going to have much time for anything else. so we have farmers, blacksmiths, blah blah blah, and we all share and trade. The problem is, this principle has been over-extended from labour into basic human qualities. By delegating the virtues of bravery and strength to one group, i.e. cops, it is implied on a subconscious level that "that's not my job anymore." This is the state of affairs that leads to stories like we've all heard of a woman being raped an murdered in an alley in broad daylight with people walking right by.

This isn't always the case. When people fight back when they see injustice, the media just labels them rioters and gangs.

There have been plenty of cases where police misuse their authority, but the law AND the media will spin it so that the people always look crazy, on drugs or just out for trouble. In Indiana, police brutality had reached an unbearable level just a few years ago. The people finally had enough and fought back to a level where the police department could not contain the situation. The National Guard had to be called in.

They spun that story as if it were about looting and violence.

Here's another scenario, Judo_Jibboo.

What do you do when plain clothes cops pull out guns and don't identify themselves right away? This is a very distinct possibility and a very important side of urban combat as the police do this quite often in major cities. Do you run? Do you fight? Wouldn't you treat it like any other self defense situation especially in light of the fact that you don't know they're officers? In those situations, your reaction usually comes about within the first 3 seconds following your becoming aware of the fact that your being accosted.

In New York there is a case like that going on right now concerning the Sean Bell shooting. He left a bar with two of his friends, got in his car and attempted to drive off when men in street clothes produced guns and began shouting. When Bell panicked and tried to drive off after seeing guns produced, he collided with an unmarked police minivan, prompting the officers to fire multiple rounds into the car. No weapons or drugs were found in the car or on the passenger's person.

Anyone notice how every time the cops murder someone the victim's priors come into play and are plastered all over the media?

Anyway, what would you do in that situation? By the way the law would have us conditioned, we would allow carjackers to walk right up to us and shoot us because we weren't certain if they were undercover cops or not. And whether or not they identify themselves is a moot point unless the whole incident is videotaped with sound. If there is no evidence, the cops will ALWAYS say that they did identify themselves.

So in this scenario, where a man in street clothes approaches you, produces a firearm and points it at you all without identifying himself as a law enforcement officer, what would you do? Do you let your training kick in and disarm him and proceed to stomp him out ... which would inevitably lead to a savage beating for you if it turned out to be a cop, and an assault charge. You can't prove that he didn't identify himself, so what do you do, knowing that if he isn't a cop that you're putting your neck on the chopping block?

well, if i would fight uniformed cops abusing their authority, the last thing to cross my mind if i'm physically threatened would be "wait just a second there jibboo my boy, what if he's a cop?"

but you're right, this is an interesting situation. i think it's fairly clear that the cop would be in the wrong here by not identifying himself. so that answer is rather easy, but your scenario raises more important questions.
the fact that this scenario actually happens is proof of what you alluded to earlier when you said if we behaved as cops wanted us to we would let carjackers walk right up to our cars and shoot us. they want us to be meek and pliable whenever force is threatened. apparently, by their logic they shouldn't have to state that they're a cop, it's enough that they have a gun!!

i'm surprised (well, not really surprised unfortunately) that i haven't heard of this case you and gregimotis are discussing, but i just wonder, do the cops think we are retarded? they fired 43 times at a man who might have been a danger to bystanders? i think it's clear who the danger was here.

in the one intense, terrifying moment that most of us will hopefully never experience, when we need a cop for the only time in our lives, the vast likelihood is that there won't be one to be found for a mile, and you may find yourself quickly transitioning from hoping for a cop to hoping the ambulance will get there in time.
but what if every man and woman who was so inclined could carry the weapon of their choice? how many robberies would go down if the robber didn't have to look over his shoulder only to assure himself that there was no cop in sight, but had to wonder to himself if the grandma in the corner had a glock in her purse, and how fast the man a few yards away (the man with a strangely unsettling confidence to the way he carried himself) could close the distance if he happened to carry a tonfa and the will to swing it?
i can't answer that question. the world would be different, that's for sure, but more violent? less violent? filled with more or less fear than it is now? again, i can't tell you, but i can tell you for damn sure that airplanes would not be hijacked with box-cutters...

[BoarSpear]

LOL, I've been hit twice this week with neg rep.

Apparently too much discussion of Martial arts or warfighting makes the pansies nervous.

[Hardball]

"you used to have gumption--Boring"

Yeah thats the neg rep some little pussy left for this thread, of course the little baddass didnt have the balls to sign it.

S'all right though, we all know who the biggest pussy on the board is.

LOL, I've been hit twice this week with neg rep.

[Hardball]

From my observation of police shootings, just stand still...they cant hit what their aiming at but if you move they might accidentally hit you.

LOL, you talk like my Marine Buddy!!!