Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
tactical police units wear different vests than normal police. They use ceramic based composites and can usually stop a rifle round .
State Troopers aren't tactical police. They're the guys who sit on medians of highways all day and write tickets.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
Well the only difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is sometimes merely whether someone does mean things that are illegal or not. There's occasionally people who join the military because they "want to kill people" for instance.
No, it isn't.
Psyshell
Perhaps I've misunderstood the terms then, that's what I was taught in school anyway (not that my education in that field was terribly reputable). What would you say it is then?
srussell0018
Psychopathy isn't a diagnosable disorder, rather a set of many symptoms (lack of empathy, extreme egocentricity, superficial charm, lack of remorse, etc.).
A sociopath has a psychopathic personality, and tends to lack almost all emotions as we see them, and who has a complete lack of moral responsibility and social conscience.
So you can almost use the terms interchangeably, but there are small differences between the two terms, which have nothing to do with what you stated. Both true "psychopaths" and sociopaths often engage in criminal behavior.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Psychopathy isn't a diagnosable disorder, rather a set of many symptoms (lack of empathy, extreme egocentricity, superficial charm, lack of remorse, etc.).
A sociopath has a psychopathic personality, and tends to lack almost all emotions as we see them, and who has a complete lack of moral responsibility and social conscience.
So you can almost use the terms interchangeably, but there are small differences between the two terms, which have nothing to do with what you stated. Both true "psychopaths" and sociopaths often engage in criminal behavior.
This. Well put, by the way.
srussell0018
My father has been a forensic psychologist for about 30 years. :p
Feel free to PM me if you'd like to talk about it more. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of his position on here, but I know you're interested in that type of thing.
He even worked with the Son of Sam once lol
Psyshell
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
This. Well put, by the way.
Sounds right, I should probably look up the difference between the terms more. Do you have any reputable sources to link that back up your definition srussell?
NP about wanting to PM, I mean man, this is one of the top 200 forums on the net, it's not exactly a 100% private place (99% maybe).
Zharen
ATTN: everyone here who is advocating a ban on assault rifles in the US. You're only making this problem worse btw.
The National Rifle Association may still get its way and defeat the lawmakers calling for a ban on the sale of assault ridles, but some gun store owners say it seems their customers aren't taking any chances.
"We have never seen anything like this," said Larry Hyatt, who owns a gun shop in Charlotte, N.C. "We have the Christmas business, the hunting season business, and now we have the political business.
"We have seen a lot of things, but we have never seen anything like this, this is probably four times bigger than the last time we saw a big rush," he said.
Some of the customers in his store said it is the talk of stricter gun control in the wake of the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that is driving the rush.
"The way they are trying to approach it, they are just making people who have never thought about buying a gun, now they want to come in here and buy a gun," one customer said.
At NOVA Firearms in Falls Church, Va., there have been "skyrocketing" sales following the Newtown shooting, chief firearms instructor Chuck Nesby said.
"They've been off the charts. Absolutely skyrocketing," Nesby said. "If I could give an award to President Obama and Senator Feinstein would be sales persons of the year."
He was referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said she will introduce an assault weapons ban in January.
Sales are up 400 percent, he said.
"We're completely out of the so-called assault weapons, semi automatic firearms that are rifles," Nesby said. "Forty percent of those sales went to women and senior citizens. We can't get them now. Everybody, nationwide is out of them the sales have just been off the charts nationwide."
The horrific shooting, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza broke in to the elementary school and killed 20 children and six adults with a semi-automatic rifle, has even some former NRA supporters saying it's time to change the rules on assault weapons.
Those guns were banned from 1994 until 2004, when the ban expired and was not renewed.
Now it's not just lawmakers who have traditionally advocated stricter gun control talking about the need to act.
Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas suggested today on CBS' "Face the Nation" that new regulation should be considered.
"We ought to be looking at where the real danger is, like those large clips, I think that does need to be looked at," Hutchison said. "It's the semi-automatics and those large magazines that can be fired off very quickly. You do have to pull the trigger each time, but it's very quick."
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat but a long-time opponent of gun control who like Hutchison has received an A rating from the NRA, has also come out in support of strengthening gun laws.
NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said Friday that more gun control is not the way to stop such shooting from happening again: the answer is more guns, in the form of armed guards in every school.
After being criticized for two days for the proposal, LaPierre today stuck by his guns.
"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"When that horrible monster tried to shoot his way into Sandy Hook school, that if a good guy with a gun had been there, he might have been able to stop [it]," LaPierre said.
LaPierre and the NRA said that the media, the entertainment culture and lack of proper mental health care are to blame, not the proliferation of guns in the United States.
Asa Hutchinson, the former congressman who will lead the effort by the NRA to place armed security guards in schools across the country, said today on "This Week" that gun control efforts would not be part of the "ultimate solution" to gun violence.
So yeah, I get the logic in placing a ban on assault weapons. But now that there's actually a chance of a ban happening, everybody's going out and buying one. Great work US government.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by Zharen
ATTN: everyone here who is advocating a ban on assault rifles in the US. You're only making this problem worse btw.
So yeah, I get the logic in placing a ban on assault weapons. But now that there's actually a chance of a ban happening, everybody's going out and buying one. Great work US government.
I would just think of it as a boxing day blowout sale.. or a firesale / bankrupcy sale
funds are already dropping their positions in gun manufacturing cos
At least two firefighters died when they were shot at the scene of a blaze in upstate New York on Monday, police said.
Two other firefighters were injured, police in Webster, New York, told reporters.
Authorities believe one or more shooters took aim at the firefighters after they left their vehicles, Police Chief Gerald Pickering said.
Lagrangian
Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence
The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.
Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.
The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.
While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.
Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.
Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.
Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.
Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.
Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
Ron Paul
Submitted by Tyler Durden from Zero Hedge
