>>>>>>>>>>>>>Here in the U.S. I think they always just assume there IS a gun on the premises. They should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And I imagine they are usually right. Guns in homes here are not the norm. Although you just gave me an odd thought. In the type of domestic dispute that would require police intervention, I wonder what the stats are on there being a gun in the home or not. After all, those people would also not represent the norm in our society. I suspect there are no such stats available - especially when the gun, if there is one at all, isn't used during the dispute. I also suspect that the incidence of guns existing in those homes would be higher than in normal society, but that might just be my own prejudices speaking. Interesting thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I suspect there are figures somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I've read that in the bigger cities the gun regisrty is checked before attending any domestic disputes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's what I was saying before. If the gun registry has done nothing else, it has at least given the police a hint about what they might find when they have to go out on a call.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unlikely. The registry was a huge expenditure for little gain. The police would be fools to rely on it. There is nothing keeping it accurate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If it's inacurate, then it's only because so called 'law abiding citizens' are breaking the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Exactly why it should never have been made. Doesn't stop crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt that any reasonable person expected it to stop crime. It's supposed to be a tool to help law enforcement entities, and to some extent, I think it does. Certainly, it was insanely mismanaged. It should never have cost anything approaching what it did, but then, it was a government project, after all. Also, it faced a lot of battles because of people using the specious argument that it wouldn't stop crime. If everything we did depended on 'stopping crime', we'd never get anything done. Nothing we can ever do will stop crime. We can lock people up and throw away the key; we can spend millions on education and grass roots projects; we can bring back the death penalty. If the criteria is 'will it stop crime', then there is no point in bothering with any of it. May as well just leave things as they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly! Humans are far from perfect. Trying to shoehorn them into these ridiculous systems is bound to fail. Funny how none of the so-called government goes to jail for mismanaging OUR money. They spent all that money on a gun registry and now they're going to ban guns. So much for the need of the registry! It's a stupid joke!
>>>>
>>>>I agree entirely about the stupidity of a statement about 'banning guns'. It's not enforceable, who what's the point?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What we need is for some realism. Too many laws and registries and zero-tolerance policies is just as bad as anarchy. When you can't spit without being arrested, remember this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Personally, I think a gun registry is just one place to start. We need tougher laws for persons who just guns in commission of a crime. For that matter I think we need tougher laws for any crime. We also need to do something about our constant need to pave over recreation sites to create shopping malls. We need to beef up the relevance of education to future hopefully useful citizens. We need to make parents more accountable for the actions of their children. We need to do a lot of things. The gun registry is only one small part of it all.
>>>>
>>>>I still want to know what the government should do. Never make laws about anything because they won't 'stop crime'? Is that really a valid criteria? It's the argument that is always used, so I guess it must, in some persons minds, be a valid criteria for lawmaking. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think the government has a responsibility to try to mitigate crime, and if they can with a law, then the law they create to do it is valid in my eyes. We have laws against robbery, and murder. Those don't stop robbery and murder. Should they be repealed as worthless?
>>>>
>>>>BTW, it's already a crime to spit on the sidewalk.
>>>
>>>No, here's the crime!
>>>
>>>http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-07-19/news_story.html
>>
>>I suspect, as no doubt you do, that the cop was probably a bit over the top, and only interested because the man was black. Not knowing the cop, I don't know that, but it's probably an easy guess, and if true, he should certainly be disciplined.
>>
>>Having said that though, if a man is teaching his children, not to mention all the other children around him also on their way to school, how to spit on the street, I think publicly shaming him may not be such a bad thing. Same goes for littering, butting in lines, crossing against the red light, urinating on lamp posts etc. One of the best ways I know to build an uncivilised society is to teach our children lack of courtesy and disrespect for the society around them, and for the laws that at least attempt to keep that society civilised. Why should it be tolerated?
>
>I think you have it right, to a point.
>Thing is, I see it a society's job to teach courtesy and respect and not a police job. Definitely not a policeman's job.
>Parents, school and other (non police) members of society have that job. I try to do my bit. But looking at your list, crossing against a red light or urinating on a lamp post are not a problem I'd worry about unless it was a kid who needed to be told what's acceptable.
>
>When I was young 2 things that happened a lot that you hardly see anymore are spitting and doggie-doo lying around. I was a spitter and can't remember when/why I stopped. And I thnk there is such a thing as spitting 'courteously', with regard for others who are around. A cop rolling by in a cop car is not impacted in any way unless it's directly on his windshield or splatters him/her through an opened window. It may not be good form but this incident most certainly isn't a police matter. Period.

Why is society impacted, but not a cop? Aren't cops part of society? I agree that the cop probably was a bit of a jerk about it, but if you can say something, why can't a cop say something? Cops are people too. This cop should maybe have approached the issue on a person to person basis rather than a "me COP, you citizen" basis, but I don't see why he has less right to scold than you do.