Because in America these things are designed by zoning and the political process. What you describe in Japan sounds like the Horrors of Captialism and can't possibly be allowed in America.
(Except I suppose it does happen, since the whole point of the article is that NYC does it).
> Complexity will increase, but our level of abstraction will increase to match, as with any technology.
But this is no panacea. The complexity will still be there, and ops folks will have to deal with it through extra layers of indirection and obscurity (which are other ways to spell "abstraction").
That might be the best compromise, but it is still a compromise.
A public safety rationale would be about cops service weapons. The parent post sounds like he means individual cops can buy guns on the open market as private citizens would be allowed to do in states with looser gun laws.
Cops actually buy most of their equipment on the open market, replacing and upgrading it as needed. Think about it: we don't have special, government-only clothing, boot or weapons factories in the US anymore. If we did, we'd have the same planned economy shortages and overruns that any other such system does.
Cops are also allowed to keep guns after they retire. It's important to remember that guns are issued to police for self-defence, since the work they undertake puts them in harm's way. That doesn't change after they retire.
You are generalizing, but that general reasoning doesn't make any sense when applied to specific people and laws.
First of all, why are they not bound by the same magazine capacity limits? If more than 10 rounds are needed for self defense, shouldn't everyone in the state have that tool at their disposal (per Heller)?
Similar question about buying a newer model of pistol. Why would the 2019 model be crucial to keep a retired cop from getting gunned down, but forbidden to others? There isn't even a major functional difference between a 2013 glock and a 2019 glock.
And generalizations about how retired police somehow need their special guns and nobody else does are just not compatible with the notion of individual rights. I bet a lot of abused women are in much greater danger than an average retired cop. Who decides who the special groups are that get special privileges?
Fundamentally, a police officer is a citizen. It happens that their job is dangerous, and I respect and admire their courage. But it's also a position of power, and we need to keep that under some control so that we maintain trust. Arbitrary privileges erode that trust.
Perhaps you've stumbled unwittingly into the real reason behind current gun control measures in California and some other states.
It's not about keeping people safer, nor about making it easier to track criminals...
It would be less offensive to just be transparent about these regulations. It's about making it more difficult for anyone to legally purchase or maintain a firearm.
The shoe is on the other foot -- we really need to justify the restrictions. Why is it a good idea for cops not to have those guns?
The argument you make about Gen 3 vs Gen 5 Glocks actually suggests there is no reason to restrict the general public from buying them, either. The Gen 5 has duplicate controls for left-handed shooting and is thus safer for some people.
All the points you are making are basically why the laws are dumb -- 10 round magazines are not significantly safer for the public than 17 round magazines, for example -- and no one likes to be subject to useless restrictions. Least of all cops.
Oh come on, they really aren't in harms way after retiring with maybe a handful of exceptions. There's no reason they should be allowed to CC in all 50 states. Especially since literally no one else has that right.
Oh come on, they really are. Think about it: they typically retire in the area where they've been a cop. Criminals know who they are and where they live, and have for years -- and criminals never retire. Cops should definitely be allowed to carry concealed in all 50 states.
That no one else has that right maybe tells us we should expand CCW reciprocity. It's already something like 35 states.
>Criminals know who they are and where they live, and have for years
I'd need to see some stats on how often retited police officers are retaliated against by criminals before I'll buy that this is anywhere near likely enough to worry about.
Even if the answer is zero that doesn't prove what you're hoping it would because as has been discussed, in reality those retired cops still have their weapons and criminals are aware of that.
So the hypothesis is that criminals want to kill retired cops, but they don't because they know the cops still have guns? I'm not buying that. If someone really wants to kill you, and they know where you live, a gun in your house or in holster isn't going to stop them. You can't be constantly on alert.
I don't think there really is that huge of a problem, but the justification for these special rules seems a bit absurd. If you want to treat retired cops differently and give them special privileges, just say so. Stop positioning as something that retired cops need because of all the criminals out hunting them down.
I'm saying that it seems likely that there is at least some deterrent effect, yes. I'm not sure what the magnitude of the effect is, but I can't imagine that knowing someone inside is armed has no deterrent effect against would be invaders or that being armed provides no defense advantage should they do so.
We're not talking about your normal criminals who have some economic motive, we're talking about people who are already acting against their own self interest and to take revenge.
Either way assuming that being armed doesn't provide a 100% effective deterrent, statistics should still help us here. Even assuming a very high deterrence rate, you would still expect to see at least a handful of revenge murders of retired cops every year if this was a significant problem at all.
>provides no defense advantage should they do so
This one should be very easy to determine. How many times each year do armed retired cops thwart revenge attacks?
From what a quick Google search tells me both of these things basically never happen.
> we don't have special, government-only clothing, boot or weapons factories in the US anymore. If we did, we'd have the same planned economy shortages and overruns that any other such system does.
But now, Western governments have to endure usurious prices or massive budget/time overruns for basic supplies (e.g. Germany has a problem with shoes for soldiers), quality issues (in Germany, G36 rifle, police uniforms in Bavaria and IIRC there were also issues with protection vests).
Planned economy Soviet-style didn't fail because of being what it was, it failed because of a lack of data gathering and processing (demand modeling), as well as the procedural inflexibility to react to short term changes.
Those problems often exist because of single sourcing, and the arsenal system was often much worse. Protection vests, helmets and other stuff that meet military standards are actually quite affordable in the US and there are multiple vendors for all of them. A good search to run online to see what the system looks like is “AR 670 boots”.
Let's get this straight. There's "American English" used in the US and Canada. And then there English, where "colour" is spelled with a "U", and that's used in lot more countries, and natively spoken by more people than American English.
Really? Are you talking about India? If so, I'm not sure what percentage of people have english as their mother tongue - I think it would be quite small. Also, I think indian english is about as dissimilar to british english as american english is.
The Nazis got away with going around beating up opponents with truncheons.
The authorities turning a blind eye to that stuff was not an upholding of anyone's civil liberties, it was being complicit in shutting down other's free expression.
That's a of an odd reading of an article that is going out of it's way to point out that the "marketplace of ideas" idea was (1) not the justification for the 1st Amendment and (2) that Ben doesn't view it as the justification for Facebook's move either.
> In fact, I would go further: Facebook’s stance is an essential expression of what makes American tech unique. Don Valentine, the legendary founder of Sequoia Capital who passed away last week, once said:
>> The world of technology thrives best when individuals are left alone to be different, creative, and disobedient.
> This is not a statement about participating in the marketplace of ideas, winning others over by the power of your argument. It is, rather, an affirmation of the absence of tyranny. Only when individuals are able to think for themselves can something truly new to the world be created, and the proof will be the success in the market for tech products and services.
It's interesting to see how Hamilton's arguments against a bill of rights hinges on the idea that the government doesn't have power unless the Constitution grants power to the government.
> Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
The US constitution (like others) is indeed formally structured around enumerated powers. But such limitations are have been deeply unfashionable for decades -- and the great and the good have found various end-runs around it (such as the US commerce clause).
The anti-federalists were right not to trust Hamilton.
(Except I suppose it does happen, since the whole point of the article is that NYC does it).