|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're the one who thinks the cops should have to verify that the erratic suspect who they were told was armed has in fact pulled out a gun and not a wallet or cell phone. I don't think absolute knowledge should be a requirement, merely a reasonable perception of imminent danger based on the totality of the circumstances. This is a statement that in no ways whatsoever addresses what I said.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:requires X-Ray vision, Spidey senses, and a host of other super powers. Or, you know, eyeballs and ears to receive all those signals that say "I have no intention of complying with any instruction to do anything which would indicate that I am not going to murder you during this investigation." Cole thinks killing a man with the assistance of a tazer requires Matrix-tier gymnastics. You think perceiving threatening behavior requires super senses. I found the answer. You're both retarded autists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Or, you know, eyeballs and ears to receive all those signals that say "I have no intention of complying with any instruction to do anything which would indicate that I am not going to murder you during this investigation." Yeah I really want dipshit cops making life or death decisions based on their perception of other people's intentions. You do realize that the standard youre articulating already exists right? Why do you have to whine so much to try and justify the dog poo poo status quo? Quit whinging about how other people disagree with you with this performative victimhood nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
If cops just want to get home safe every night maybe they should go do something else then hope with the rest of us that some murderous lunatic doesn't come across their path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Or, you know, eyeballs and ears to receive all those signals that say "I have no intention of complying with any instruction to do anything which would indicate that I am not going to murder you during this investigation." Th punishment for noncompliance: death without trial. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
judge dredd is anime
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is a statement that in no ways whatsoever addresses what I said. mlmp08 posted:Th punishment for noncompliance: death without trial. Kawasaki Nun posted:Yeah I really want dipshit cops making life or death decisions based on their perception of other people's intentions. You do realize that the standard youre articulating already exists right? Why do you have to whine so much to try and justify the dog poo poo status quo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't a punishment. Ah, that semantic argument will mean a lot to the dead and bereaved after a stupid police shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ah, that semantic argument will mean a lot to the dead and bereaved after a stupid police shooting. Not the officer's primary concern, nor should it be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Not the officer's primary concern, nor should it be. The crux of my argument is that if it's impossible for an officer to properly identify a real, clear, and present lethal threat and react accordingly, why should we be allowing them to identify and shoot people based on unclear, not-present threats? You can't really have it both ways where cops aren't good enough to shoot when there's a threat, but they're plenty good enough to shoot before they have even identified a threat. And while I am reluctant to make any direct military to police comparisons, because of some clear differences, I feel that in both jobs, when people volunteer for them, they sign up for some danger and potentially disadvantageous ROE. It's all rather situational though. There are certainly some cases of unarmed people getting killed by cops where I'll say "poo poo sucks" without damning the cop. If someone goes out there to suicide by cop and intentionally misleads cops into thinking they're armed just to suddenly lunge at a cop and get gunned down, I got it. If a cop is rushing into an active shooter scenario and shooting in good faith, but an errant round hits an innocent person, or the cop misidentifies a good samaritan with a gun, those are tragedies and part of living in society. If someone is, say, crawling around on the ground crying while a cop with a rifle demands that they crawl toward them while their pants fall down and then the cop flips out and shoots them, gently caress that cop, he was in a position to positively ID a threat before shooting. If someone is not complying but not a clear life/limb/eyesight danger, that should not be grounds to kill them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You can't really have it both ways where cops aren't good enough to shoot when there's a threat, but they're plenty good enough to shoot before they have even identified a threat. The long answer to this question sprawls out in a lot of different directions, with the usual culprit of American Mental Healthcare looming tall over the smoldering mounds of executed by cop or whatever nonsense the dead and the bereaved have to contribute to this national discussion. The short answer: gently caress you. If you want the benefit of the doubt in a shootout, punch the clock and be available to take a statement at 3am when somebody steals my stereo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
edit: nevermind
Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
cop's https://www.theroot.com/lapd-releases-video-of-cops-shooting-unarmed-homeless-m-1821948022
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
So as to not poo poo up CE with my nuclear take: The common ground Americans need to try building on is that people who want to ban guns and people who want to own all the guns are both motivated to those positions because they don't trust their neighbors to have guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
As a gun owner, I just want the gun loving and the gun hating retards to stop loving it up for the rest of us. It's not that hard to get along with one another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
kupachek posted:As a gun owner, I just want the gun loving and the gun hating retards to stop loving it up for the rest of us. It's not that hard to get along with one another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
There is no meaningful gun control measure that could pass and not instantly die at SCOTUS so we're much better off trying to ameliorate the circumstances that lead to crime, like poverty. Unfortunately this means kicking Wall Street and the rich squarely in the nuts so that isn't happening either. As it stands now the Democrat platform of gun control is just sleight of hand for their minority voters to avoid addressing the fact that Democrat policies have turned their communities into crime riddled shitholes as much as Republican ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:There is no meaningful gun control measure that could pass and not instantly die at SCOTUS so we're much better off trying to ameliorate the circumstances that lead to crime, like poverty. Unfortunately this means kicking Wall Street and the rich squarely in the nuts so that isn't happening either. Yes, if we create a bunch of ridiculous contortions based on obsolete documents, it will indeed be impossible to pass meaningful gun control regulation. Or we could we could not try to force a modern legal system through the lens of ambiguous 250 year old statements, stop fetishizing the people who wrote them, and join the rest of the developed world by passing provably effective gun control measures. Proud Christian Mom posted:As it stands now the Democrat platform of gun control is just sleight of hand for their minority voters to avoid addressing the fact that Democrat policies have turned their communities into crime riddled shitholes as much as Republican ones. Wait, what? The Republicans are putting all of their energy into kicking the legs out from under the working poor while dismantling social support structures, but both parties are the same somehow. Is this the part where you tell us that helping poor people makes them dependent and they need to get pulling on their bootstraps instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yes, if we create a bunch of ridiculous contortions based on obsolete documents, it will indeed be impossible to pass meaningful gun control regulation. Or we could we could not try to force a modern legal system through the lens of ambiguous 250 year old statements, stop fetishizing the people who wrote them, and join the rest of the developed world by passing provably effective gun control measures. The literal foundation of this country is built upon it and its not going away anytime soon so again try doing something that might actually make a difference. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Wait, what? The Republicans are putting all of their energy into kicking the legs out from under the working poor while dismantling social support structures, but both parties are the same somehow. Is this the part where you tell us that helping poor people makes them dependent and they need to get pulling on their bootstraps instead? Bill Clinton had no problem doing the GOP's dirty work in "welfare reform" and an entire blue government under Obama did gently caress all to change any of it. Nevermind their brazen defense of the same people who've been loving the poor forever: the rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Gun control can be achieved within the framework of the Constitution. Constitutional government is not worth throwing away for less than, like, a hundred thousand dead kindergarteners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yes, if we create a bunch of ridiculous contortions based on obsolete documents, it will indeed be impossible to pass meaningful gun control regulation. Or we could we could not try to force a modern legal system through the lens of ambiguous 250 year old statements, stop fetishizing the people who wrote them, and join the rest of the developed world by passing provably effective gun control measures. Can't do that, the 2nd amendment exists as a final protection of your personal freedom and sovereignty should the 1st fail. Its litterally written with the intent that a man should be armed to kill another in extremis. Hence why banning guns is a false narrative that begins from the assumption that the "developed world" is a peaceful and equitable place where violence has place. That is going to be a non-starter for another century+. There are many avenues of effective policy of regulation and licensing that don't involve banning any guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
On a separate crazy note In my mind there should be a legal path to owning just about any weapon of war, just that for things like an artillery piece that the process would take 3 years and you could only store it at the nearest army live fire range. But legally you'd still own it. You know, the 'well regulated militia' part. Go buy a SAW, you just have to keep it in a safe at a certified range rather than in your home. Now there would be no way I see of making that system fair to people without a ton of cash to burn, so it would have the effect of most existing gun regulation in that it just inhibits those in poverty from exercising their right, rather then preventing ownership. E; I should also add that every range I’ve been too that offers full auto rentals has such garbage safety, maintentence, and weapons control that they shouldn’t even be allowed to rent anything. That’s another element that would have to be legislated and enforced by whatever replaces the dumpster fire that is the ATF M_Gargantua fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
hmm we are in the worst recession since the great depression, what should we do? I know: expand social programs
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:hmm we are in the worst recession since the great depression, what should we do? I know: expand social programs Expanded social programs and actual taxes would be a good thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:Expanded social programs and actual taxes would be a good thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Can't do that, the 2nd amendment exists as a final protection of your personal freedom and sovereignty should the 1st fail. Its litterally written with the intent that a man should be armed to kill another in extremis.  that wasn't the intent of the 2nd nor how it was construed until the 20th century. It was entirely because the founders feared a strong central government with the entire army and preferred that each state handled their own military affairs. The militia system was supposed to be the effective "standing army" so that one didn't actually need to exist. The militias rightly got their asses kicked in basically every conflict and were quietly swept into history. It was never about making sure that every person had a gun to overthrow the government. It was because they didn't want a full standing army and states wanted their own private armies. Cause you sure as gently caress better believe they didn't want slaves, women, or really anyone besides landowning white men to be armed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
You're right in that it absolutely wasn't "every person own a gun to overthrow the government". But it was absolutely to ensure that local municipalities would not be toothless against authority run amok. Either individually or in groups, the militia was not just a singular state level entity. The whole setup is supportive of the ethos that individuals (land owning white men) have a right to weapons to defend their communities. Its not a right to own hunting rifles, its a right (for land owning white men) to own weapons whose purpose is to kill another person. Just because the militia system was garbage and collapsed eventually doesn't remove the original intent and purpose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Bill Clinton had no problem doing the GOP's dirty work in "welfare reform" and an entire blue government under Obama did gently caress all to change any of it. Nevermind their brazen defense of the same people who've been loving the poor forever: the rich. None of that is good, but it's disingenuous to say that Democratic policy positions with respect to minority poverty are as destructive as Republican policy positions.Things can be less bad than other things. M_Gargantua posted:Can't do that, the 2nd amendment exists as a final protection of your personal freedom and sovereignty should the 1st fail. Its litterally written with the intent that a man should be armed to kill another in extremis. This is such a ridiculous fantasy. When in US history has an underprivileged group won progress on civil rights by arming themselves? The few armed slave revolts were brutally put down. If the march on Selma was armed, they would probably would have been mowed down on the spot. If the LGBT community engaged in any armed attacks during the fight for marriage equality, they would have set the effort back significantly. Arguably the only times that civil rights have been advanced by an armed group in the US, it was the federal government that was armed. I guess occasionally some white nationalists are able to get away with pointing guns at federal agents? Meanwhile, back in reality, there are 30,000 some people dying from gun injuries annually and that number would go down significantly with meaningful restrictions on gun ownership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:You're right in that it absolutely wasn't "every person own a gun to overthrow the government". But it was absolutely to ensure that local municipalities would not be toothless against authority run amok. Either individually or in groups, the militia was not just a singular state level entity. The whole setup is supportive of the ethos that individuals (land owning white men) have a right to weapons to defend their communities. Its not a right to own hunting rifles, its a right (for land owning white men) to own weapons whose purpose is to kill another person. Just because the militia system was garbage and collapsed eventually doesn't remove the original intent and purpose. The failed militia system was the original intent and purpose. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Meanwhile, back in reality, there are 30,000 some people dying from gun injuries annually and that number would go down significantly with meaningful restrictions on gun ownership. "Meaningful" restrictions? Like what, exactly? Feature-list banning scary sounding and/or looking poo poo somebody saw in a movie once? Since when has it ever been a tenable position to legislate away profound mental health policy issues? Or are we talking more about the gang violence fueled by racially-motivated legislation and policy on drugs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Diarrhea Elemental posted:"Meaningful" restrictions? Like what, exactly? Feature-list banning scary sounding and/or looking poo poo somebody saw in a movie once? Since when has it ever been a tenable position to legislate away profound mental health policy issues? Or are we talking more about the gang violence fueled by racially-motivated legislation and policy on drugs? Ban the manufacture and sale of handguns except where specifically needed by law enforcement and military; and introduce licensing, registration (that is centrally stored and can be referenced when needed), and background check requirements on all transfers of firearms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Ban the manufacture and sale of handguns except where specifically needed by law enforcement and military; This part is a poor policy that no one will accept quote:and introduce licensing, registration (that is centrally stored and can be referenced when needed), and background check requirements on all transfers of firearms. this part is good policy that the NRA has dedicated millions of dollars to prevent because it would reduce sales.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The failed militia system was the original intent and purpose. No, that was the expected means to the intended end. M_Gargantua posted:this part is good policy that the NRA has dedicated millions of dollars to prevent because it would reduce sales. Sure the government wouldn't abuse a registry later on. We certainly haven't heard about THAT possibility in the past loving month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:None of that is good, but it's disingenuous to say that Democratic policy positions with respect to minority poverty are as destructive as Republican policy positions.Things can be less bad than other things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This is such a ridiculous fantasy. When in US history has an underprivileged group won progress on civil rights by arming themselves? The few armed slave revolts were brutally put down. If the march on Selma was armed, they would probably would have been mowed down on the spot. Armed resistance absolutely played a large part of the Civil Right Movement. Armed groups were on the fringes of all the public marches, both figuratively and literally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
McNally posted:Armed resistance absolutely played a large part of the Civil Right Movement. Armed groups were on the fringes of all the public marches, both figuratively and literally. Not just on the fringes. Dr. King carried firearms for self defense as well. There is a book on this topic called This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible Here is the summary from Amazon: quote:Visiting Martin Luther King Jr. at the peak of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. “Just for self defense,” King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend's Montgomery, Alabama home as “an arsenal.” Edit: Here is a link to an article about the book for a TL:DR version - http://prospect.org/article/armed-resistance-civil-rights-movement-charles-e-cobb-and-danielle-l-mcguire-forgotten Delizin fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Feb 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No, that was the expected means to the intended end. No, it was the whole point. They never intended for every american to be armed. That wasn't a notion until the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:No, it was the whole point. They never intended for every american to be armed. That wasn't a notion until the 20th century. They wanted every member of the "militia" to be armed. The militia was defined as every male aged 15 to 45. That's a pretty broad compared to every land owning white male.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:They wanted every member of the "militia" to be armed. The militia was defined as every male aged 15 to 45. That's a pretty broad compared to every land owning white male. I know. That was the point. The militia system failed miserably and was basically swept to the dustbin of history. The 2nd amendment was never treated as a general right of the people to bear arms until heller. That is entirely a modern interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
I'm wholly unqualified to say whether it is constitutionally viable, but I'd like all my firearms be licenced so that each of my invididual boomstick is tied to a permit that states its serial, caliber, make and model. Those licenced could be on my South Carolina permit as little footnotes in the back side of the card or something, and I'd also like my concealed carry permit to be tied to the weapon I qualified with. News flash: I didn't, getting the permit was a joke that still baffles me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 11:48
|
|