NYPD Developing Portable Body Scanner For Detecting Guns 575
Zothecula writes "You have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives — after all, if someone who doesn't want to be arrested is carrying a lethal weapon, the last thing most of us would want to do is get close enough to that person to touch them. That's why the New York Police Department teamed up with the United States Department of Defense three years ago, and began developing a portable scanner that can remotely detect the presence of a gun on a person's body. The NYPD announced the project this week."
My oh my ... (Score:5, Funny)
That's one big gun you've got there buddy.
Re:My oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My oh my ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They die of cancer.
The real reason, of course, is to prevent... (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T9YaDZRUTw [youtube.com]
This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have four knives on me right now. This is what I carry with me on a daily basis give or take. Three of them are Leatherman brand, but none are the traditional multi-pliar, I find having the tools spread across multiple devices better as a tech for various reasons.
I first fired a shotgun at the age of five. At six my dad handed one to carry with me when we were out quail hunting.
New York, like Chicago, Great Britian, and many other places too much fear in the tool and not enough effort into education, trust and tollerance.
The reason I could carry a shotgun at the age of six is my dad took me out at the age of four, shot some rabbits and explained death and danger to me. He taught me to respect the tools that guns are. When I was seven he gave me a pocket knife and expected me to carry it as it is one of the most ancient, practical and useful tools known. I got in trouble if I didn't have it on me when he asked. I often didn't have it on me because the school system had the same mentality as NYPD and I knew better than to got with my dads logic, which I considered supperior.
In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways. In a rural setting they're a meal ticket, something to protect your livestock with, and occasionally a form of entertainment - when used responsibly.
When everyones armed the random individual who wishes to victimize others has less power to do so. Things like this scanner empowers criminals as it prevents otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying their tools of protection.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns. They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".
Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of. Remember: fear the people, not the tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're only talking about scanning people they arrest, why do they want the capability to scan from over 80 feet away?
They have every intention of random sweep scans (Score:5, Insightful)
This will absolutely be abused, starting on day 1. In fact, the abusive possibilities are far more likely to be the driving reason for development of this tech. The line about not wanting to frisk arrestees is just PR to win hearts and minds.
People who have permits to carry concealed weapons can expect to be needlessly hassled and targeted more than they already are.
Re:They have every intention of random sweep scans (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure it will be abused. What about the flipside, though? If the scanner is reliable, the cop won't be able to do a Terry patdown search because its no longer reasonable (because the cop can use the less intrusive scanner). So much for the patdown yielding drugs cases . . ..
Something to think about.
Hard to hit someone at 80 feet (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Scanning for knives from 80 feet (unless the circus is in town) is useful. For guns, you might as well be close.
Contrary to what you see on TV and in movies a person 80 feet away is hard to hit with a handgun, especially the more compact and concealable models. It requires training and periodic practice, its a perishable skill. Even police officers who don't go to the range often enough have problems. Now add stressful circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to what you see on TV and in movies a person 80 feet away is hard to hit with a handgun, especially the more compact and concealable models.
It's even harder to hit them with a knife :)
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you been paying attention to what's going on with the TSA? They're expanding like a cancer and the constitution doesn't seem to matter. [thetimesnews.com] The Second American Revolution will be started in response to the TSA and the fact they allowed to operate without restraint. They're moving onto public streets in some places.
Random scans are coming if they don't get shut down.
Re: (Score:3)
They're expanding beyond trains and they're trying to get to highways.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Informative)
TSA can only make suggestions to local governments about train security. They don't control it. What is your support for them trying to "get to highways"?
Sigh. You thought you were safe on the road, eh.
What have you got to hide [newschannel5.com], citizen?
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features/59187-tsa-deploys-on-tennessee-highways [tgdaily.com]
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide [newschannel5.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57318666/tsa-expands-from-airports-to-tenn-highways/ [cbsnews.com]
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists! If all (or most) passengers were armed, there is no way a terrorist would be able to hijack the plane. In fact, I think, for safety, we should require all adult passengers to carry loaded guns when they board the plane. We can keep a supply of rentals at every airport.
Ok, I jest. I agree that passengers shouldn't have guns on the plane. However, the TSA's methods of preventing that are way beyond reasonable. We can keep safety within acceptable tolerances without sexually assaulting passengers and giving them cancer.
Like, locking the cabin door. That change did more for airplane security than the entire TSA. Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs. These levels of security would be more effective than what the TSA does now, far less intrusive/harmful to the passengers, and would save the taxpayers a fortune.
But they wouldn't make Michael Chertoff even richer than he already is, so they are not acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs.
Minor correction, they are fine at finding those items if the operator had been trained properly but my experience is that the average TSA agent hasn't given the number of prohibited items I have accidentally brought through. Things like ammunition (rifle and shotgun), knives (multiple times), tools, and lets not forget liquids and gels. Yet "suspicious" items like my old Pentax Spotmatic F with lenses, or a box of magic cards gets me pulled off to the side for extra scrutiny every time.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Informative)
TSA is no longer just doing planes. They are performing random stops and searches on highways and public roads. They are installing industrial grade X-rays at, near and possibly away from the border. They are jack booted thugs with absolute license to infringe on everyone's liberty. Remember that they may operate within 200 miles of the border and every airport is now considered a border. They can now operate anywhere. They are the enemy of the constitution and the people of the United States of America.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Informative)
This one about searches in Tennessee [slashdot.org]
Or this from the ACLU about the constitution free zone [aclu.org]
Or any number [chronicle.com] of incidents [nwsource.com] that have occurred [nwsource.com]. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" [wikipedia.org] as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Informative)
Not [slashdot.org]
paying [slashdot.org]
attention? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Metal detectors have ALWAYS worked to find guns. The new invasive search procedures the TSA has introduced are not needed at all.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns are for hunting - who are you hunting on a plane?
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution about hunting.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Insightful)
9th and 10th seem to apply. The lack of something being in the Constitution prevents the feds from regulating it in theory, but as so many have said we really don't have a Constitution anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Informative)
Guns are also for sport ... (Score:3)
I agree that the TSA is out of control but I can't imagine any sane person thinks preventing guns on plans is a bad thing. Guns are for hunting - who are you hunting on a plane?
Guns are also for target shooting. Putting holes in pieces of paper, knocking over metal plates, breaking pieces of clay, etc. Its an olympic sport. Of course your larger point is still entirely correct, none of these sporting activities are appropriate in flight entertainment.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine any sane person thinks preventing guns on plans is a bad thing.
No, a sane person knows that:
a) Penetration testers regularly get guns past the TSA
b) Guns/knives aren't very useful to terrorists since they started locking the cockpit door.
c) If a person pulls out a gun on a plane he's instantly going to be jumped by the other passengers.
d) If a person does something bad on a plane he's got no escape route. When it lands there'll be a whole bunch of people with M16s waiting for him. You'd have to be a complete idiot to try anything on a plane. Even a suicidal crazy only has a small chance of success (see point c).
So...what's the incentive for people to try to commit gun crimes on a plane? What sort of crime can they even commit? Robbery? Mugging?
Having armed people on a 'plane is really no dangerous than, say, having armed people in a restaurant. Driving to the airport is probably more risky than allowing guns on planes.
America needs to get it out of their collective skulls that airports are somehow special places which need massive extra protection. All you need is old fashioned metal detectors (with sensible policies for people who forget to check in their weapons) and smart, well trained people watching for troublemakers in the queues. More than that is counter-productive.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
1 Federal agent with a weapon is plenty on a flight. Not every citizen needs one on a plane.
Before you go crying that I'm an anti-gun person. I've held a concealed carry permit for the last 20 years.
Re: (Score:3)
1 Federal agent with a weapon is plenty on a flight.
This still isn't guaranteed. Doesn't generate any profits.
Re: (Score:3)
Risking damage to an engine when you shoot [at] a hijacker is better than letting the plane get turned into a giant cruise missile with the target of their choosing.
That said, I agree. I'd rather simply have the right to carry a knife on the plane. When five out of six guys, and several of the women, are carrying weapons, hostage situations are unlikely to happen, or last long. (Also, locking doors are awesome and effective.)
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Informative)
What they are talking about is a terry stop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop) They can stop and frisk you for weapons based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.
Just because it happened to me once, they can have a "reasonable suspicion" that you are going to j-walk because you are walking down the side walk!
You will find that they can find "reasonable suspicion" in just about anything. S/His eyes were blood shot (Drunk or stoned), S/He looks out of place in this neighborhood, and my all time favorite "Three white guys under 25 at the mall must be there to cause trouble"
Note that "Reasonable Suspicion" is defined as a point where the investigating officer has weighed the totality of the circumstances to determine whether sufficient objective facts exist to create reasonable suspicion. VERY open and abused quite regularly in my opinion.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Random stops are NOT okay.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get questioned and you are innocent you lose 5 minutes of your time.
You should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police; this is why. [youtube.com] Summarized: there is no such thing as an innocent person to a cop, only criminals who haven't turned themselves in yet.
If the police doesn't question a suspicious person they risk letting a criminal off the hook.
Untrue: First off, 'suspicious' is subjective; judging from personal experience, a teenager with long hair and a guitar case is considered 'suspicious,' even if he has done nothing illegal.
Secondly, unless a person has been reported for or is in the process of committing a crime, they are not criminals. Traveling in any fashion, whilst looking a certain way, is not a crime. Google 'DWB' [lmgtfy.com] to see my point.
Policemen are not mindreaders, they can't decide for sure who is guilty just by looking at them.
Exactly; it is not their duty to judge who is guilty and who is not, because they are not judges. Oh, and FYI, no one can decide who's guilty by cursory glance. Expecting anyone to be able to do so shows a great amount of ignorance regarding the legal system, as well as human nature in general.
Expecting them to only stop criminals is unreasonable.
No it's not, that's their JOB . Just like determining whether the accused is guilty or not is the JOB of judges and juries. See previous point regarding ignorance of the legal system.
You see, those few minutes you spent answering some questions helped the police and made your neighbourhood a safer place. Being infuriated over that is just selfish.
No; what's selfish is expecting the police to make you feel all warm and fuzzy by harassing every person in an x block radius and violating their civil rights, because according to you, everyone in your neighborhood (except you, of course), is a potential threat. Newsflash: You ain't that important, and your stuff ain't that great.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of.
My milk came out of my nose. Mod funny +5.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns.
Meh.. give it a couple years.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".
Right. Because police accusation means you abandon presumption of innocence.
Taken to it's logical extension, you advocate suspicion==conviction. You may be a "psychologist", but your also a Nazi. Godwin be damned to hell!
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way this tool will be used is simple. The cop will scan random people. If an item the cop disapproves of (even if it is legal) shows up, the cop will approach the person for questioning "because they behaved suspiciously". After a few questions, the cop will claim "probable cause", and move forward from there. At no time will the use of the scanner be claimed as the reason for the confrontation.
The only way that these devices should even be considered is if they log every time they are used, the police are required to give an explanation prior to it's use, and the logs are in a read only environment that has no mechanism for the police department to tamper with the data. A simple audio recorder that time stamps the event and lets the cop say "Making arrest on 4th st." into the device before it will scan should be enough to keep cops from abusing this.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".
RIght on! The police never arrest people who are innocent. If you're arrested, you're guilty!
Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of.
Yes, they've already ruled on this, regarding scanning anyone who enters certain parking lots in Queens, or tries to go into the buildings there to use a public conveyance. (Oh, wait! They ruled that you give up your rights when you enter those "special" places. Like airports. Or bus terminals, or subways, or many buildings. Or when you try to drive a car into a tunnel in New York City. Or, well, like anywhere
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think someone (such as the TSA) won't start using this for random scans?
Honestly? It would be way better than what they're doing right now.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no legitimate reason for a normal person to carry a gun in New York.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms - not that we should be bearing arms. I mean the Constitution gives me lots of rights that I don't necessarily use on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you don't necessarily use them on a regular basis does not mean you should not be allowed to use them on a regular basis (or at all).
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are laws in place that restrict where and when it is appropriate to restrict your constitutional right to bear arms. Just like there are times when laws restrict your right to free speech. I am not saying that it should be illegal to have a gun in New York but that for 99.99% of New Yorkers there is no good reason to do so.
Not sure how saying you shouldn't do something means that you aren't allowed to.
Re: (Score:3)
So you are saying because the Constitution says I can bear arms that I should be bearing arms? How does that make any sense? If I don't have a reason to carry a gun then why should I? Just because I have the right to?
Re: (Score:2)
Not counting the criminal who is carrying one and you're on his menu.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Funny)
I know you're from some redneck small town who thinks New York is full of big bad criminals like in the movies but I hate to tell you that New York is one of the safest cities in the country. Unless you are a car service driver in the South Bronx you aren't going to be anywhere near a criminal.
Isn't Wall Street around there somewhere?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Funny)
last rabbit I saw in NY was diesel powered, half rusted and had its rear badge hanging on by one screw.
(those are fair game to shoot, right?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sheriff Urges All Women To Carry guns [cbsnews.com]
He suggests a .45. Go check your crime stats for NYC again. The data clearly indicates that more crime happens in big cities than in small, rural towns. It has to do with population density.
Re: (Score:3)
Again. I know people in the small towns of this country believe New York is this big scary city with muggers and rapists on every corner but if you've ever lived or worked there you would see that it just isn't the case anymore. This isn't the 70's. If you want to see a real dangerous city travel somewhere like Johannesburg, South Africa. There I endorse carrying a gun.
Now if you are somebody who routinely works late at night in the crappy parts of town then sure - bring a gun. But for 99.99% of New Yo
Re: (Score:3)
I don't carry a firearm because more can go wrong from carrying one than go right by carrying one. Just ask Plaxico Burress.
And the odds of you getting into a car accident are FAR higher than even needing a gun.
Re: (Score:3)
And 75,000 is 10% of 8,000,000? I think you might want to check the decimal places in your calculation. It's still under 1%.
Yes, under 1% per year.
So you have a 99% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 1 year.
So you have a 90% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 10 years.
So you have a 78% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 25 years.
So you have a 67% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 40 years.
So you have a 55% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 60 years.
Have you woken the fuck up yet?
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated that that. I live in fairly rural Alaska, people have guns all of the time. It's not all that uncommon to see a couple of guys walking down the main road, rifles in hand, going off deer hunting. If we go out into the backwoods, I typically carry a 12 gauge for bear defense (first rounds are the shotgun equivalent of an M-80, designed to scare the bear off). I don't carry a pistol around because there is really no need to - the human animals are fairly tame compared to the batshit insanity found in a bigger city.
But in the batshit insanity of a big city, feral humans are a big problem. Especially if you are law enforcement. It's useful to know that the hophead idiot wired up on six different drugs has a pistol (although those people tend to remind me of the scene in '5th Element' where Bruce Willis disarms the guy). It's useful to know that the stoner is unarmed.
If you are carrying a gun and a policeman stops you, you'd best put your hands where they can see them and tell them slowly and carefully that you're armed. Be professional. It saves lives.
Re: (Score:2)
When you get a concealed carry permit they teach you to inform cops you are carrying during a traffic stop. Professionalism is the apex.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, surprise. A gun owner who jumps to the wrong conclusion as an excuse to go on about guns. Naturally using anecdotes to show how safe they are.
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, place a huge sign on your front door that says "No guns here, and they're not welcome."
Guns are by no means the most dangerous thing I'm around on a regular basis. I would qualify that 2005 Saturn out in the parking lot as a much bigger danger to me than my rifles and pistols, I'm much more likely to die from it. I also work around high voltages on a regular basis, and I'm not talking 115 AC.
My guns and knives may not the be the safest things I own, but they're far from the most dangerous thing I'm around regularly. When it comes to my other tools I'm more afraid of my circular saw than I am my guns.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:4, Interesting)
All the things you listed are tools with their primary use being legitimate. A circular saw, can be used to cut up bodies, but it is primarily used for sawing wood. Same deal with a car. A gun however is designed to shoot out small metal bits which rip through soft tissues. This is the primary use for firearms. To hurt or kill living tissues - humans or animals. Of course if you live in the country, it is legitimate use to carry a gun for protection from bears and the like. In the city though? You are pushing it to say that there is a legitimate defence based use for any firearms.
Here in canada guns are mostly not used in violent crime, unless there are gangs involved. I personally have been held up at gunpoint once about 10 years ago, but if I had a gun of my own, what could I have done? Got into a shooting match like counterstrike? Much more likely I would be dead now, rather than just missing 40$ from my wallet and a cel phone.
That all said, if I lived in america, I probably would own a gun. Because people down there are fearful and violent. Its kind of like somalia or Afghanistan. There are valid countries for sure where carrying a firearm is necessary. I think the USA might be one of them, but thats more of a cultural problem. I can't say for sure that it is because of the easy availability of guns that causes it, but it does seem likely.
Re:This device empowers criminals. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm generally in favor of an educated and armed population, but I don't see how the existence of this scanner makes it easier for criminals.
The scanner detects firearms, it doesn't mean that you can be arrested for one. Presumably, you could be asked for your concealed carry license if they saw you with yours, but that's just the law. Criminals would be scanned as well. So in the sense of detection, this seems more like a tool than anything else. That is unless you are trying to ensure that the police
Re: (Score:3)
Well, here's the thing: having a gun in an urban setting does not decrease the likely hood that people will shoot you. A conceled carry will not prevent random violence typical of urban settings.
All gangs have guns.
All gangs know all other gangs have guns.
All gangs use their guns on other gangs, knowing full well that they have guns.
So they use their guns to surprise the other gangs when they will be less likely to strike back immideatly. Tactics such as drive by shootings and other psuedo gurrila warfare
Re: (Score:3)
The flaw here, is not everybody was raised that way, in fact most people weren't, and what about the elderly and young? Do you think you could have legitimately defended yourself w a shotgun at 6? Not against an adult w a gun you can't. The systems already in place though, concealed weapons permit + firearm = legal, whether your getting arrested or not. Of course, they'll take it from you upon arrest, but (sometimes w great pain) you can get it back. That's different from having a gun in your home. I
Re: (Score:3)
You're not very smart are you? The closest armed person during the Gifford shooting was in a coffee shop around the corner and down the road(The shooting occurring at an anti-gun democrat rally), who didn't arrive at the scene until the gunman was already being wrestled down. As for you claims to the nature of guns on crime, I'll merely point out that none of the statistical studies which aren't pure bullshit bear out your side of the story. Then there's the fact that with the amount of drugs and PEOPLE tha
Re: (Score:3)
Random crazies who want to cause damage will always find a way to do so -- whether it's with a gun (obtained legally or not), a car, or a bomb. Anyone sufficiently motivated to try to assassinate someone else (or even just go on a rampage) will not be deterred by not having a gun. They'll either make a gun, make a spear, make a shiv, rent a truck, and so on. Where having a weapon helps is (in theory) not being prey.
Re: (Score:3)
I can not see these being abused at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Point 1: there are low-tech ways to spot whether someone's carrying a concealed gun, and there are training materials for police which teach those.
Point 2: how often is this technology going to be aimed at white people, given the huge racial disparity of the current stop-and-frisk program?
Re: (Score:2)
And they can detect lots of things, you just need to get them to understand what you want them to detect, e.g. explosives, CD-Rs, cancer, dead bodies.
Main problem is they get bored after a short while and stop being effective.
It doesn't even have to work... (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened with the "with warrant only" searh?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have a knife in your pocket? Quick, taze and spray!
Re: (Score:2)
well, if the police have probably cause, and they find a knife. They will probably ask you to remove it. If you are hostile, they will take it away. Just like they do now if they see you have a knife vs. finding a knife when the search you.
Oh, sure .... (Score:2)
Like the scanners at airports ... I'm not sure I'd be willing to entrust my health to the lowest bidder on a government contract.
And, of course, no matter what happens with the safety record of this, I'm sure it will become a crime to refuse to be scanned by this. You're not allowed to tell an law enforcement agent that his lack of medical training means he's not qualified to tell you it's perfectly safe.
I know at airports I won't get into it ... frisk me down if you like. When you're talking about cops,
YAY more x-rays (Score:2)
Just what we need.
What is next home scanners so you can size your own shoes and see your toes wiggle around?
Can remotely detect guns: (Score:5, Insightful)
And give a blurry image of it.
Or any other object that blocks the normal IR radiation from the body.
"Your honor, we had probable cause to search the individual because we thought that vague rectangular outline in his pocket was a gun. Our bad. It was a cell phone with a metal case. But, we did find the joint in his backpack during the search that we only did to ensure our own safety."
Nerds love guns too (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score:3, Insightful)
In DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), when discussing why black can't be considered citzens, the Supreme Court listed some common rights they would have:
More guns in honest hands == less crime and fewer deaths
Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score:4, Insightful)
You clearly have never fired a gun or have any idea of what the self-defense laws look like in the U.S. Even with Castle Doctrine laws, you are only authorized to use force if you are in imminent target of lethal or non-lethal force. Shooting people in the back as they take off with someone else's property is completely unjustified, as you not in danger. Before you continue dramatically dreaming up events to justify your philosophy, think about the hard working, law abiding citizen, who is just about to lose everything he ever will be (his life) from not complying with the muggers demands vs bankrupting his future defending his life in court.
http://itemlive.com/articles/2012/01/12/news/news01.txt [itemlive.com]
Stuff like this should never happen, had that lawyer not stepped in to defend this man for free he would be bankrupt, and perhaps worse, plead out to a lesser crime. All because he refused to turn his back on a man with a knife.
You don't appear to be aware that the SCOTUS ruling where the police are in fact not responsible for your
personal safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html [nytimes.com]
In the end, who was really responsible for the lives of those 3 children? Now dead. The mother who wasn't keeping an eye
on them, or the police who failed to enforce the restraining order on the estranged husband in a timely matter?
NYC violating the constitution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
First, second and fourth amendments: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' did you not understand?"
Fourteenth amendment: "What part of 'equal protection under the law' did you not understand?"
Re: (Score:3)
It is the 14th amendment that keeps local and state governments from infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms, not the 10th. Otherwise you are right.
Re:NYC violating the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
performance and cost (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if this is just as effective as the scanners in the airport, and what the cost difference is.
Suicide Vests (Score:3)
Sod guns, obviously the most useful application this technology would have, assuming it can have the range claimed for it, is spotting suicide vests as frisking is clearly impossible. I believe the only current option is to force the suspected bomber to undress at gunpoint, while standing well away from them.
I'll be interested to see if the Israelis start buying this technology. Though I assume it'll only take a another 7/7 in London before they put these into every tube station.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, maybe it would be easier if they just got rid of the entire bill of rights and put us all in cages.
Don't give them ideas...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... gun tolerance approaches Zero and crime drops. Man, it must pain you when the facts run counter to your belief.
PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare (Score:3, Interesting)
Your new cancer and lack of presumed innocence are a small price to pay, in order to defeat statistically non-existant terrorists.
Police Commissioner Kelly said the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances and could cut down on the number of stop-and-frisks on the street.
But the New York Civil Liberties Union is raising a red flag.
"It's worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down the street without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the Police Department when you're doing nothing wrong," the NYCLU's Donna Lieberman said.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/ [cbslocal.com]
After years of rebuffing health concerns over airport scanners, the Transportation Security Administration plans to conduct new tests on the potential radiation exposure from the machines at more than 100 airports nationwide.
But the TSA does not plan to retest the machines or passengers. Instead, the agency plans to test its airport security officers to see if they are being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation while working with the scanners.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120116,0,7082529.story [latimes.com]
"Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this," John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, told CNET. Sedat has raised concerns about the health risks of X-ray scanners, and the European Commission in November prohibited their use in European airports.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/ [cnet.com]
Re:PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You are easily angered. Funny how the tone of a comment gives more rise to your ire, than the supression of your rights.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think this sums it up best,
Democratic Underground [democratic...ground.com]
Re: (Score:3)
at what point did the police get the power to randomly stop someone to frisk them
The 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] allows the police to stop and frisk suspects upon "reasonable suspicion." Of course, this is a vaguely defined term, and in practice means whatever the police want it to mean.
Re: (Score:3)
I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
You should try cracking a dictionary sometime:
militia
[mi-lish-uh]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interf