Most dangerous job is gun repo men

[mizzou]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-s-gun-repo-men-have-a-nerve-racking-job-155325406.html


I can see that, and I would never do that job. Shit, people will want to hurt you when you take their cars. Take away guns? ugh.

Anyway, alot of comments about "They should put this much effort into disarming gang members and drug dealers." - Dan

Yeah....how many drug dealers committed mass murders? :\


http://www.npr.org/2013/01/16/16954...-many-mass-murders-as-mentally-ill-beforehand
NPR article on how hard it is to identify mental illness prior to the horrific crimes that were committed.
----------------
On another note, would we rather enforce strict gun ownership laws to prevent these mass murders? What is making us feel unsafe about guns, the mass murders, or gun crime in general?

I feel like these sensationalized shooting sprees are taking a focal point when really, they are just a small part of what gun crime really is.

There must be some common ground here, and it's only found in common sense.

How the fuck...can we not find a common sense solution to this???

 

[Lithium381]

Emotions and not logic and facts and statistics is one problem. Another is blaming guns and not the person behind the gun. Another is looking at the root cause of violence; before we even discuss what's USED for that violence. Drugs is a big problem leading to violence. So are socio-economic factors. Another is people feel threatened that THEY would be "punished" when some mentally-ill person commits violence.

 

[mizzou]

All I know is, if someone, who has the capability and means, says "I'm going to shoot every mother fucker that gets near me" we should be able to take that seriously on a legal stage. There should be zero public opposition to that.

How to implement that without turning into a clusterfuck, I guess is why we dislike politicians so much lol

 

[nextJin]

I think this should be a liberal specific jobs program, specifically in the South and midwest.

 

[monovillage]

The first link is a repost of a repost.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307081
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302960

The second is just the typical NPR anti-gun bullshit as if the guy that committed the murders in the theater wasn't well known by the school to be a nutcase and dangerous, but they never reported him. Same thing with the Columbine murderers and I disagree with them about Lanza.

 

[mizzou]

The first link is a repost of a repost.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307081
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302960

The second is just the typical NPR anti-gun bullshit as if the guy that committed the murders in the theater wasn't well known by the school to be a nutcase and dangerous, but they never reported him. Same thing with the Columbine murderers and I disagree with them about Lanza.

Yeah, Yahoo regurgitated that one! lol Thanks,

 

[Juror No. 8]

Good. That should be a dangerous job. Many felons are convicted for what amounts to non-crimes like "possession of a controlled substance". To use or possess a drug isn't a real crime, as there isn't a victim. No victim, no crime.

If you take a job which entails you going around and knowingly violating the rights of non-criminals, you deserve exactly what you get.

 

[mizzou]

Good. That should be a dangerous job. Many felons are convicted for what amounts to non-crimes like "possession of a controlled substance". To use or possess a drug isn't a real crime, as there isn't a victim. No victim, no crime.

If you take a job which entails you going around and knowingly violating the rights of non-criminals, you deserve exactly what you get.

The victim is the general public, or the "state", in a possession case. The state maintains victim status, because drug addictions and dealings have a very negative impact on society overall from all aspects.

You don't have a specific victim, because we are all victims.

 

[monovillage]

The victim is the general public, or the "state", in a possession case. The state maintains victim status, because drug addictions and dealings have a very negative impact on society overall from all aspects.

You don't have a specific victim, because we are all victims.

In California marijuana is legal to use medically.

 

[mizzou]

In California marijuana is legal to use medically.

I don't understand what you are bringing up? Most Marijuana charges aren't even misdemeanors, let alone felonies.

 

[monovillage]

I don't understand what you are bringing up? Most Marijuana charges aren't even misdemeanors, let alone felonies.

The authorities can and do use the federal laws to prevent people from possessing or buying firearms if they use marijuana, even if State laws allow it. Such is the case here in California. In fact it's part of the form you must fill out when buying a firearm.
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs

 

[blankslate]

Gun repo men should have access to military grade body armor with the ceramic plates that can stop some rifle bullets and if the person is known to have an arsenal be allowed to walk into the situation armed with fully automatic weapons.

They should also be psychologically evaluated so that mentally unbalanced people can't get the job. Which might be a Catch 22 there... what sane person would take the job?

 

[mizzou]

The authorities can and do use the federal laws to prevent people from possessing or buying firearms if they use marijuana, even if State laws allow it. Such is the case here in California. In fact it's part of the form you must fill out when buying a firearm.
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs

"Any person who has a conviction for any misdemeanor listed in Penal Code section 12021(c)(1) or for any felony, or is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, or has been held involuntarily as a danger to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8103 is prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. Various other prohibitions exist for mental conditions, domestic restraining/protective orders, conditions of probation, and offenses committed as a juvenile.

PC Sections 12021 and 12021.1, Welfare and Institutions Code S"

Ouch...

 

[Juror No. 8]

The victim is the general public, or the "state", in a possession case. The state maintains victim status, because drug addictions and dealings have a very negative impact on society overall from all aspects.

You don't have a specific victim, because we are all victims.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of legal prescription drugs that cause addictions, death, and have a negative impact on society, yet the government doesn't mind those one tiny bit. Want to know why? Because, in reality, and contrary to your claim, government doesn't give two shits about drug addictions and any associated negative impacts on society. Hell, government loves negative impacts on society, otherwise it would absolutely no reason to exist. Remember, "never let a crisis go to waste".

Joe Schmoe snorting a line of coke in the privacy of his home isn't harming or endangering anyone but himself, which he has the right to do. After all, it's his life and his body, not the government's or society's. No victim, no crime.

 

[Fenixgoon]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-s-gun-repo-men-have-a-nerve-racking-job-155325406.html


I can see that, and I would never do that job. Shit, people will want to hurt you when you take their cars. Take away guns? ugh.

Anyway, alot of comments about "They should put this much effort into disarming gang members and drug dealers." - Dan

Yeah....how many drug dealers committed mass murders? :\


http://www.npr.org/2013/01/16/16954...-many-mass-murders-as-mentally-ill-beforehand
NPR article on how hard it is to identify mental illness prior to the horrific crimes that were committed.
----------------
On another note, would we rather enforce strict gun ownership laws to prevent these mass murders? What is making us feel unsafe about guns, the mass murders, or gun crime in general?

I feel like these sensationalized shooting sprees are taking a focal point when really, they are just a small part of what gun crime really is.

There must be some common ground here, and it's only found in common sense.

How the fuck...can we not find a common sense solution to this???

common sense means different things to different people, especially when you compare gun-owners (who know a thing or two about guns) to people who have no clue whatsoever about guns.

many people are for magazine capacity limits. is it a "common sense" solution? my common sense tells me that anyone who wants to go on a shooting spree will do so, and will not stop until they encounter resistance. therefore, magazine size limits are virtually worthless, because no matter how many times the shooter needs to reload, they will not be opposed by anyone (until police arrive or unless there is someone on-scene with a CCW willing to provide immediate response)

many people are for "assault weapons" bans. what makes a firearm fall into the "assault weapon" category, and do these characteristics make them meaningfully more dangerous? many firearms owners will tell you a) "assault weapons" are just a made up category for legislation. there are only "assault rifles" which are select-fire (full-auto/burst/semi-auto or some combination of) and b) no, banning these firearms is neither effective nor sensible

is banning rifles with certain characteristics common sense? are they really any better or worse than any other semi-automatic weapon? there are plenty of other firearms that would do an equal or better job at killing people than an AR15. despite the expiration of the 1994 AWB, firearm homicide and violent crime rates have continued to fall from 2004-present. so does banning the AR15 and similar rifles make sense? to me and many other firearms owners, no, it doesn't.

does legislating restrictions on weapons that are used in ~5% of all firearm homicides seem sensible? shouldn't law enforcement and policy makers target high-crime areas and the root causes of said crime, rather than making sweeping restrictions or violations of 330 MILLION american citizens, including 100M+ law-abiding gun owners?

furthermore, the department of justice analysis has found that the 1994 AWB had no positive or negative effects on firearm homicides.

FBI crime data shows that both firearms homicides and violent crime have been dropping consistently for over 20 years. so despite the massive news coverage, america has never been safer

should we implement further restrictions, or perhaps even violate the 2nd amendment, despite the fact that we have data showing that current policies have been working?

The victim is the general public, or the "state", in a possession case. The state maintains victim status, because drug addictions and dealings have a very negative impact on society overall from all aspects.

You don't have a specific victim, because we are all victims.

the state or the public is no victim in personal drug use. using that logic, virtually anything could be legislated because it has a negative impact on society:

see Overlord Bloomberg in NYC.

banning sodas over 16oz
hiding tobacco products from countertops
using $12M of his own money to advance his anti-gun agenda

all in the name of "saving lives"

 

[mizzou]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of legal prescription drugs that cause addictions, death, and have a negative impact on society, yet the government doesn't mind those one tiny bit..

Possessing ANY amount of a non-prescribed, prescription drug (depending on type) can be an automatic FELONY. One fucking pill can be a felony, most states have fairly aggressive and simple laws for prescription drug abuse. This is serious and huge problem.

Joe Schmoe snorting a line of coke in the privacy of his home isn't harming or endangering anyone but himself, which he has the right to do. After all, it's his life and his body, not the government's or society's. No victim, no crime.

Yeah, when Joe Schmoe does the following he doesn't harm anyone.

1. Accidentally OD's, causing emergency personnel to treat him and send him to the hospital and waste resources
2. Dies from OD, wasting valuable resource. I'm sure Joe's family is going to love spending their $ on his shitty funeral rather then a college fund for Joe's kids, who are probably with his ex wife.
3. Buys some coke off of a drug dealer that should have been in school, but wasn't, because he was pressured by gang activity to deal drugs and make easy money instead of trying to better himself.
4. When Joe loses control of his emotions, loses his job due to his addiction, and starts committing crimes just to get by and keep his high.
5. Maybe Joe gets real fucked up and decides to kill himself.

---------------------

Look...you obviously don't see the bigger picture about this, and that's OK because you probably don't have the experience. You may see a friend do a line of coke, and he's the fucking life of the party. What you don't see is what's going on behind the scenes. The stealing, assault, lying, sadness, and death.

You are making it sound like all drugs are as harmless as weed. Weed doesn't do shit because it's easy to grow, easy to get, and the effects are harmless. Court's generally treat it as such.

Go find a meth lab, talk to the people making it, and let me know how victimless of a crime it is to use their product.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but what you are saying is potentially dangerous. Think about it, who are the politicians other then people WE vote into office. If you vote into office someone who is like, "Eh, he's just doing some coke what the fuck is the big deal? He didn't hurt anyone".

Courts will make rulings based on law, founded by our constitution. But prosecutors generally act on a combination of law and public will. If prosecutors know a jury will not give a shit about prescription drug charges or coke use, then there's no point to anything.

 

[Fenixgoon]

mizzou, if you legalized drugs and produced them purely with very tight process control, you might actually see FEWER OD's. the reason is that many drugs are cut with other crap, and it's the crap that ends up killing you, not necessarily the drug itself.

you know those prescription drugs with all the shitty side effects? that's often due to impurities in the drug that can't be removed, until a different chemical manufacturing process is found.

in organic chemistry, many products are racemic mixtures, where a chemical reaction produces equal amounts of two compositionally identical, but structurally different, products.

one half is the active drug you want, the other half is crap (that often causes shitty side effects).

 

[mizzou]

mizzou, if you legalized drugs and produced them purely with very tight process control, you might actually see FEWER OD's. the reason is that many drugs are cut with other crap, and it's the crap that ends up killing you, not necessarily the drug itself.

you know those prescription drugs with all the shitty side effects? that's often due to impurities in the drug that can't be removed, until a different chemical manufacturing process is found.

in organic chemistry, many products are racemic mixtures, where a chemical reaction produces equal amounts of two compositionally identical, but structurally different, products.

one half is the active drug you want, the other half is crap (that often causes shitty side effects).

I am 10000000% for legalizing marijuana, with a caveat of some oversight on decent production and safety. Sort of like a "free trade" branded weed, whatever that is worth...

You are absolutely right about OD's. Heroin right now can be extremely pure, so if you a user gets it, that one button might be like taking 10 buttons from their previous batch.

Or maybe it's cut with some type of poison lol

 

[Juror No. 8]

Possessing ANY amount of a non-prescribed, prescription drug (depending on type) can be an automatic FELONY. One fucking pill can be a felony, most states have fairly aggressive and simple laws for prescription drug abuse. This is serious and huge problem.

You're obviously missing the point.

Legally prescribed drugs kill and addict tens of thousands of people every year and are almost always involved in the mass shootings we hear about so frequently. Yet, the government doesn't do shit but bend over backwards for Big Pharma.

Yeah, when Joe Schmoe does the following he doesn't harm anyone.

Exactly. No victim, no crime.

You're catching on.

1. Accidentally OD's, causing emergency personnel to treat him and send him to the hospital and waste resources

Joe Schmoe isn't responsible for setting up our health care system, where hospital emergency rooms will admit anyone regardless of whether they can pay or not.

2. Dies from OD, wasting valuable resource. I'm sure Joe's family is going to love spending their $ on his shitty funeral rather then a college fund for Joe's kids, who are probably with his ex wife.

Irrelevant. People have the right to consume whatever substance they like, even if it results in death.

Joe Schmoe didn't force anyone to waste money on a funeral. Joe Schmoe isn't responsible for how his family wastes money after he's dead.

3. Buys some coke off of a drug dealer that should have been in school, but wasn't, because he was pressured by gang activity to deal drugs and make easy money instead of trying to better himself.

Or maybe it's because the government has so thoroughly destroyed the economy through taxes and regulations that black market drug dealing is more profitable than going to a government indoctrination center and winding up with a dead-end job.

4. When Joe loses control of his emotions, loses his job due to his addiction, and starts committing crimes just to get by and keep his high.

Well now you finally have some real victims, if Joe starts committing real crimes.

That's different.

5. Maybe Joe gets real fucked up and decides to kill himself.

It's his life, he can do what he wants with it.

What business is it of yours?

Look...you obviously don't see the bigger picture about this, and that's OK because you probably don't have the experience. You may see a friend do a line of coke, and he's the fucking life of the party. What you don't see is what's going on behind the scenes. The stealing, assault, lying, sadness, and death.

How do you know what experience I have?

For all you know I might come from a family of drug dealers.

You are making it sound like all drugs are as harmless as weed. Weed doesn't do shit because it's easy to grow, easy to get, and the effects are harmless. Court's generally treat it as such.

Go find a meth lab, talk to the people making it, and let me know how victimless of a crime it is to use their product.

If people who use meth want to use it and destroy their lives, what business is it of yours?

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but what you are saying is potentially dangerous. Think about it, who are the politicians other then people WE vote into office. If you vote into office someone who is like, "Eh, he's just doing some coke what the fuck is the big deal? He didn't hurt anyone".

I guess I'm failing to see the danger in freedom.

A hundred years ago people in this country were free to do all the drugs they wanted and guess what, society survived.

Courts will make rulings based on law, founded by our constitution. But prosecutors generally act on a combination of law and public will. If prosecutors know a jury will not give a shit about prescription drug charges or coke use, then there's no point to anything.

Fuck 'em. Our courts and government couldn't possibly be any more corrupt. You put me on a jury and I'll do my damnedest to nullify every drug law on the books.

The point is freedom, buddy. FREEDOM.

 

[monovillage]

common sense means different things to different people, especially when you compare gun-owners (who know a thing or two about guns) to people who have no clue whatsoever about guns.

many people are for magazine capacity limits. is it a "common sense" solution? my common sense tells me that anyone who wants to go on a shooting spree will do so, and will not stop until they encounter resistance. therefore, magazine size limits are virtually worthless, because no matter how many times the shooter needs to reload, they will not be opposed by anyone (until police arrive or unless there is someone on-scene with a CCW willing to provide immediate response)

many people are for "assault weapons" bans. what makes a firearm fall into the "assault weapon" category, and do these characteristics make them meaningfully more dangerous? many firearms owners will tell you a) "assault weapons" are just a made up category for legislation. there are only "assault rifles" which are select-fire (full-auto/burst/semi-auto or some combination of) and b) no, banning these firearms is neither effective nor sensible

is banning rifles with certain characteristics common sense? are they really any better or worse than any other semi-automatic weapon? there are plenty of other firearms that would do an equal or better job at killing people than an AR15. despite the expiration of the 1994 AWB, firearm homicide and violent crime rates have continued to fall from 2004-present. so does banning the AR15 and similar rifles make sense? to me and many other firearms owners, no, it doesn't.

does legislating restrictions on weapons that are used in ~5% of all firearm homicides seem sensible? shouldn't law enforcement and policy makers target high-crime areas and the root causes of said crime, rather than making sweeping restrictions or violations of 330 MILLION american citizens, including 100M+ law-abiding gun owners?

furthermore, the department of justice analysis has found that the 1994 AWB had no positive or negative effects on firearm homicides.

FBI crime data shows that both firearms homicides and violent crime have been dropping consistently for over 20 years. so despite the massive news coverage, america has never been safer

should we implement further restrictions, or perhaps even violate the 2nd amendment, despite the fact that we have data showing that current policies have been working?




the state or the public is no victim in personal drug use. using that logic, virtually anything could be legislated because it has a negative impact on society:

see Overlord Bloomberg in NYC.

banning sodas over 16oz
hiding tobacco products from countertops
using $12M of his own money to advance his anti-gun agenda

all in the name of "saving lives"

Excellent post. Another class of firearms that was/is high on the ban list are the "Saturday Night Specials" which is basically a firearm that's cheap enough that even (horrors) poor and working class people can actually afford to buy them. One of the insidious ways in which gun control proponents work is by slowly and steadily increasing the cost of owning and operating a firearm until only the rich/elite/privileged can afford the slew of licenses, taxes, training, ammunition, fees etc. that are continually applied to their rights.

Don't forget that Bloomberg also wants hospitals and care facilities to stop handing out formula so that new mothers are "forced" to breast feed since it's "better" for the child.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180635/Mayor-Bloomberg-bans-baby-formula-NY-hospitals.html

Mayor Bloomberg has demanded that hospitals stop handing out baby formula to persuade more new mothers to breastfeed their babies.

The New York City health department will monitor the number of formula bottles being given out and demand a medical reason for each one.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You're obviously missing the point.

Legally prescribed drugs kill and addict tens of thousands of people every year and are almost always involved in the mass shootings we hear about so frequently. Yet, the government doesn't do shit but bend over backwards for Big Pharma.

Exactly. No victim, no crime.

You're catching on.

Joe Schmoe isn't responsible for setting up our health care system, where hospital emergency rooms will admit anyone regardless of whether they can pay or not.

Irrelevant. People have the right to consume whatever substance they like, even if it results in death.

Joe Schmoe didn't force anyone to waste money on a funeral. Joe Schmoe isn't responsible for how his family wastes money after he's dead.

Or maybe it's because the government has so thoroughly destroyed the economy through taxes and regulations that black market drug dealing is more profitable than going to a government indoctrination center and winding up with a dead-end job.

Well now you finally have some real victims, if Joe starts committing real crimes.

That's different.

It's his life, he can do what he wants with it.

What business is it of yours?

How do you know what experience I have?

For all you know I might come from a family of drug dealers.

If people who use meth want to use it and destroy their lives, what business is it of yours?

I guess I'm failing to see the danger in freedom.

A hundred years ago people in this country were free to do all the drugs they wanted and guess what, society survived.

Fuck 'em. Our courts and government couldn't possibly be any more corrupt. You put me on a jury and I'll do my damnedest to nullify every drug law on the books.

The point is freedom, buddy. FREEDOM.

Good points.

Additionally the ironic part about the bold statement is that people are already destroying their lives with meth regardless of the law. So in essence when someone brings up the argument stating that these laws are somehow preventing people form destroying their lives well that is is a fallacy. When one considers that those people who want to use meth can and already do use it despite the our drug laws the fallacy is easily exposed.

 

[Socio]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-s-gun-repo-men-have-a-nerve-racking-job-155325406.html


I can see that, and I would never do that job. Shit, people will want to hurt you when you take their cars. Take away guns? ugh.

Anyway, alot of comments about "They should put this much effort into disarming gang members and drug dealers." - Dan

Yeah....how many drug dealers committed mass murders? :\

They can't simply because society and political correctness has given gang members and drug dealers free reign as the majority would be minorities it would be called racial profiling and deemed racist.

Which is why they are only targeting suburbia, it is called politically correct selective enforcement.

 

[JTsyo]

The program has met little resistance from gun groups, which have pressed state and federal lawmakers to enforce existing gun control laws instead of writing new ones. “We think that crime control instead of gun control is absolutely the way to go,” says Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. His only complaint is how the law is funded. On March 7, California’s senate voted to expand the seizure program using $24 million from fees that gun dealers charge buyers for background checks. “This program has a benefit to the entire public,” Paredes says, “and therefore the entire public should be paying.”

But it's gun owners that are committing felonies by not turning in their weapons.

 

[desura]

Sounds like a fun job.

Gun owners should be in favor of programs like these. They're targeted towards wrongdoers instead of imposing blanket restrictions.

 

[waggy]

You're obviously missing the point.

Legally prescribed drugs kill and addict tens of thousands of people every year and are almost always involved in the mass shootings we hear about so frequently. Yet, the government doesn't do shit but bend over backwards for Big Pharma.

.

lol you really don't have clue or just trolling.

Do a google search on FDA going after Pain clinics. or the govenment trying to limit how much Pain meds a person can. etc.

they are going after LEGAL prescribed drugs.


as for the rest of your post it makes me think you are trolling.