Yes, a sad truth.
That’s why I believe there are few to no “good cops”. The few that exist are usually run out of law enforcement the first time they report criminal cops. The examples of this are endless. Everything from nonstop harassment at work with the chiefs approval or even involvement to straight out murder by fellow officers.

I can’t blame rookie cops, but anyone in the system over a year has become part of it.

I believe every officer should go through psychological testing by reputable testers, not cop psychologists, and civil rights retraining every 5 years max. Edit: I also cannot for the life of me understand why body cameras can be turned off, they should be always on and disabling one should be a crime. Mostly I think qualified immunity needs to be abolished. It’s insane for taxpayers to pay for police misconduct while the perps get extra paid vacation time at most. I think being a cop should be a sentencing enhancement, doubling any sentence and enforcing a minimum prison time for any crime that carries possible prison time. Abusing authority is no small thing.

I like the joke, but the premise is faulty. I had heard the same things about some psychological test, but I got fixed with no children in my mid 20’s…the only “test” my doctor required was answering the question “are you sure?”

Healthy as a horse.... and almost as bright. I've seen some pretty unhealthy horses in my day too.

The cognitive test he requested and took was 4 parts....
1. Name a few animals.
2. Draw the hands of a clock at 3:30.
3. Draw a cube
4. Repeat a short list of words.

It's not a comprehensive mental fitness test, or a psychological test. It's a totally basic, does he have full blown dementia test. That's all. And it took him 10 minutes to complete. This test does not rule out anything except full blown dementia and coma. He repeated it's one of the longer screening tests, but neglected to mention the short ones are as short as 'do you know where you are?' Or 'what's your birthday?'

He's still totally bat shit crazy, a consummate liar, and a believer in fish people and pedophile pizza, but I admit it seems he can remember how to read a watch and what a cat is. Not a high bar, especially for a leader.

I am impressed he isn't on death's door considering his reported diet.

I like others said, lost it almost off the bat, thanks to two other factors: the fact that he mentions not to laugh or smile. Which for some reason makes you "do a practice run" when you hear it (really that is something that might make a good psychology test). Second as others mentioned is how others reacted to the video, ended up making me smile or chuckle.

Anyway, they win and I'd like to keep it that way, we'll see how long the Internet/Cthulhu will let things stay this way..

21%, but like TheGenk I wouldn't qualify myself as a people person either, as psychological tests go (and I've taken a couple) it's pretty weak.
The quiz comparing historical figures was kind of interesting, managed 5 out of 7 on that one. And a lot of the traits mentioned in this video could really go either way, many of those things could apply to people and they still would not be a psychopath.

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

Don't drink on them, though! I made that mistake recently and was taken for a RIIIIIIDEE! This is why such things should be legal because since I quit my job, I was having a blast, going to the beach, partying with friends - but had been looking for some for a little while. They present themselves at the wrong/right moment - I'm already drunk - I know better but hey I'll just have a nibble. It was fantastic but I remember thinking this guy was Huter S. Thompson giving me a psychological test. I know it sounds cheesy but it really was like that!! It was awesome but very strange. If they were perfectly legal (which I think they should be) then I wouldn't have been so stoked to toss myself into the fluorescent lights of... the porch in lower-haight I was hanging out on hahah!

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I won't condone the way Garofalo put it because there are no rigorous scientific definitions of any of the adjectives she used, but there is something to it.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED

As determined by psychological testing:

Liberal Concerns
Harm/Benefit (aka utility)
Fairness

Conservative Concerns
Authority (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness)
Purity (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness, hijacked by whatever notions of purity happen to occur in the location of their birth)
In-group Loyalty (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness). In various circumstances this is known as tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, patriotism, speciesism, or ageism.

The latter three are a crude system of morals that might have suited humanity well before it developed a germ theory of disease, representative government, and global commerce.