You can now get a citation for making direct eye contact with a cop

[Kramodlog]

One could argue the opposite - arms encourage peace. That said, the UK is certainly less armed. I don't know anything about Quebec's weapons laws.

Pretty weaponless, except for some hunting rifles. We have a strong desire to control firearms and some of the lowest deaths by firearms in Canada. We have some of the lowest homicide rates period. Maybe it comes from the military using firearms on us a lot throughtout history?

As for "an armed society being a polite society", I'm more on the same page as David Frum: "As more armed, the more that those as yet unarmed feel compelled to arm themselves too. The technical term for this is: barbarism. https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/301064338389753856

 

[Janx]

One could argue the opposite - arms encourage peace. That said, the UK is certainly less armed. I don't know anything about Quebec's weapons laws.

I've heard Canadians are really polite. And Weird Al references their guns in his Canadian Idiot parody.

I suspect in truth there is a washing out effect of arms vs. peace/politeness.

The old saying "and armed society is a polite society" might have some traction, but there's also the side effect that some folks with lawful possession guns start acting in a bullying fashion. Having a gun on them makes them feel tough and their behavior degrades.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Since the dawn of rich people...

Since the dawn of people, really. If it wasn't wealth, it was force of arms skill with weapons. Alphas will demand recognition.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While an armed society may well be a polite society, it will also contain those who are of the "I have a hammer, where's something I can nail together?" mindset. (And not all of them will be named Checkhov.)

 

[Kramodlog]

I've heard Canadians are really polite. And Weird Al references their guns in his Canadian Idiot parody.

I suspect in truth there is a washing out effect of arms vs. peace/politeness.

The old saying "and armed society is a polite society" might have some traction, but there's also the side effect that some folks with lawful possession guns start acting in a bullying fashion. Having a gun on them makes them feel tough and their behavior degrades.

From up here, it looks like firearms are sold as empowerment to USians. Power to defend yourself and to defend against the government, but it looks more like false empowerment. Guns bring death and injury, not safety and the government will steamroll over any armed rebellion.

 

[Janx]

Since the dawn of people, really. If it wasn't wealth, it was force of arms skill with weapons. Alphas will demand recognition.

I'm pretty sure in modern society it's badwrongfun to voice such opinions that one is better than others. Nobody likes a braggart, and there's some humility culture going on (as compared to Beowulf era where it was OK to say how awesome you are by recounting your deeds and lineage).

But there are plenty of people in high enough places who get treated as better and act as if they think they are better. Some of them aren't (that degradation factor), but some folks really are just better people than such as myself.

 

[tomBitonti]

It is a pretty low threshold- a simple technical violation will do it. I know a lot of people who are or were patrol/traffic cops, and almost all of them told me the same thing: if you follow any vehicle long enough, you will see something sufficient to warrant a stop.

That would be a reason to pull someone over. What is sufficient to allow them to be followed?

I accept that unequal surveillance is unavoidable: A police officer watching over a busy park will give different folks unequal views based partly on experience and partly on an ad-hoc sense of where to pay attention. A person could have all sorts of reasons to stand out and draw attention.

But a policeman in a static situation seems very different than being tailed in a car for several miles.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Lhorgrim]

That would be a reason to pull someone over. What is sufficient to allow them to be followed?

I accept that unequal surveillance is unavoidable: A police officer watching over a busy park will give different folks unequal views based partly on experience and partly on an ad-hoc sense of where to pay attention. A person could have all sorts of reasons to stand out and draw attention.

But a policeman in a static situation seems very different than being tailed in a car for several miles.

Thx!

TomB

As long as you are driving on a public roadway or publicly accessible area a traffic unit can follow you. Sometimes I got behind people that I wasn't trying to follow but we ended up going the same way for a couple of miles. I could see them checking me in the rear view. Usually I was on the way to a dispatched call. Sometimes when I was actually following somebody the computer would be running slow or dispatch would be busy and it would take awhile to get a license plate check back. I might have to follow for a couple miles in that situation. In my experience we usually followed cars because they got complained on as a DUI or a reckless driver. We have to observe something to pull a car over, so most of the time the "reckless driver" that got called in drove fine for a mile or two and we went back to patrol. Some of the DUIs we followed to get good video on the way they were weaving before we made the stop, and sometimes we had to wait for a safe place for both cars to pull over. This just applies to traffic units, drug interdiction works a little differently.

 

[Umbran]

While an armed society may well be a polite society...

Tell that to the Earp family.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sure Earp family dinners were QUITE civil.













...until the gravy ran out.