|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:When you go get mental health care because you want to kill yourself they take your shoelaces and belt even though your shoe laces and belt aren't the problem. Right, because there's evidence (arguably) that you might pose a threat to yourself. They don't the laces and belt from everyone in the nation.
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Y'all are loving morons. slaves are a right granted by the loving Constitution idiots just because you don't want or need slaves you don't need to take everyone's. You guys keep trying to legislate away things you don't understand those aren't slaves they're indentured servants and sharecroppers.  The Constitution grants rights you guys. Anyway, that Constitution didn't survive the Civil War.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
I'm perfectly fine with more stringent performance testing for CCW. In both states I've gotten a permit through, the test was a joke. The AF M9 qual was "harder." Edit: I also think you should have to retest every decade or two for a driver's license, but 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
There are a lot of other things that contribute too. You're trying to focus on ONE, using means that are either unconstitutional, unenforceable, or of little/no preventative value.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:People have suggested actual ideas for gun control. You've just said "no we need to focus on this instead" without suggesting actual ideas. It looks like you're more anti-taking your guns than actually solving the problem. I think all I've really taken a stand against was registration and arbitrary bans. I'm fine with background checks. I think we should make them more efficient, even. Improved safety, operation, and marksmanship education/testing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, you have yet to demonstrate how a registry would negate the ability of a government to just come and take your guns anyways. Because registered or not, they will. Two points: 1-The list of historical examples yields results ranging from further dividing people politically to nefariously motivated government seizures to a lack of intended results. I don't have to demonstrate anything. You're the one claiming a registry will do something, a significant event which will necessitate a major political movement and that will somehow yield superior results. That's where the burden of proof lies. 2-So let's just make it easy? I mean...I guess that's one approach to anything of importance. Let's just give up on healthcare and any of a thousand other, more important issues just because they're hard. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The thread title says gunchat, what'd you expect?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
gently caress YOU THAT'S MY RIGHT
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I can't stop laughing at you comparing Firearms Training to Literacy Tests for voting. Jesus, you guys are hosed up. The insurance bit is overly dramatic, but his assessment of the industry is accurate. The testing paragraph is poo poo, though. And completely ignores that we somehow already make it work. The academics I've received for my permits was fine...I'd like to see more proficiency training, but I think 40 hours is hilariously excessive. NUKES CURE NORKS posted:If you own a firearm you have to carry "I Shot You" insurance. It works like car insurance. That's not how insurance works. Companies won't offer it if they judge it'll be a bad financial investment. That's how insurance works. Anyway, there are actually several companies that provide CC insurance already, but it's for legal fees, not medical.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
It's not, inherently. That's why it already exists. But once again, if we're talking about making this mandatory, how about you explain what it's supposed to fix?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Not that gunchat debate threads are ever any good, but this one went straight to hell as soon as TFR showed up. Shocking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
What was the cop actually charged with? If it was something like murder 1, then yeah once again that's a poor decision on what to file.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Arc Light posted:The two ideas aren't even mutually exclusive. By virtue of living in a state with easy concealed carry and license-free open carry, at least 1/3 of the people I come into contact with are armed. If we know or believe that a suspect is armed, we order them to the ground at gunpoint and then at least one officer covers them while another officer cuffs and searches them. I don't want to say this is "routine," per se, because no armed encounters are, but it's common enough that literally every cop in the city has done it multiple times. We've had exactly one officer killed by gunfire in our 68 year history. This is in a city with a higher violent crime rate per capita than Chicago. Apparently the reason they wanted them to move forward was because there were uknown people with alleged firearms in the door just to the dead guy's left. They picked about the worst way to get the suspects to move out of that door's LOS except "lie on your back and crab-walk towards me!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Yes, cutting allowed reaction time in half would result in negligible risk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
 And people here think DR is a robot. Jesus. That's not how you're going to fix police recruiting problems (to clarify, I mean getting better applicants).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Guess we're done here, folks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:Police regularly get away with what would be war crimes in Afghanistan so I don't know what you're trying to argue here. Cops should be in danger before they can shoot people, they shouldn't feel they're in danger before they shoot people. I don't think it's quite as often as you seem to think, but it's obviously a problem. quote:we're talking about policing our own loving citizens for fucks sake are you actually arguing cops should shoot people the moment they feel threatened? There are ways to minimize risks taken by officers beyond shooting everyone before they can shoot me regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Thing is, it takes time for the human brain to process something. Waiting until a gun is visible and identifiable is physically impossible. It'd be akin to being expected to hit a home run on a fastball over 100mph the first time you see it. Except if you miss, you die before you even realize you missed. The solution isn't making the job more dangerous, it's making it more attractive to decent human beings. Starting wages in the $13/hr range isn't cutting it, for one thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
I'm fine with empiricism. But I'm also not sure we want people popping off badly aimed shots in public either. Any more so than the cops already are.  Edit: But there are a bunch of dashcam videos of pretty much exactly what you're looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
boop the snoot posted:yeah and if a few innocent people die as a result who gives a poo poo? that's just how it goes. you wanna make an omelette, you gotta shoot some innocent people, amirite? Are you arguing in favor of cops shooting people or guys pulling guns from waistbands shooting people?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:its not a binary choice It is in Cole's post that I was questioning. Who is shooting what innocent people?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Pec attack is good, but horse slide is better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imM6omziU_I
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Turning and shooting is neither magical nor rare for fleeing (armed) suspects. The officer that shot Scott got 20 years, so I'm not sure why this is even being argued about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Are you dissatisfied with the legal standard?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
boop the snoot posted:you don't get to dictate how ROE is/was because it goes against your point. the ROE was the ROE, and it was more strict than the police ROE to pull the trigger on other americans. i'm sorry this goes against your narrative, but that's seriously how it was, dipshit. I don't think anyone is going to disagree that your leadership was garbage on that point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
brand engager posted:It went some weird places Oh my god, I've never seen that before. Holy poo poo. loving 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
They released die cast models of it. drat, I definitely would've bought that and thrown it in the attic to confuse myself in 5 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Looked like they tagged him several times...I'm pretty surprised he survived (and is now facing 3 attempted murder charges). But yeah that's a good one to show how fast poo poo goes south.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:And also how you can wait til it goes south and also live, instead of scaredy-shooting them ahead of time. Yeah, they should make it policy that the suspect gets to expend half his mag first as long as his gun isn't actually aimed at the officers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Well ok. So actually reaching for a beltline is too early, but actually letting the suspect open fire is too late. What should the trigger (no pun intended) be?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
You're aware how short that timeline is, right? Like...we're talking 1/4 sec or less.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This disregards all of the events that got a cop(s) (not that specific video, in general) into that situation. Did they pursue without adequate backup? Were the police clearly identified to the person they shot? Why did they put themselves in a situation where there isn't enough time or cover for less lethal alternatives or at least a moment to fully assess the circumstances? Was there an appropriate opportunity to deescalate that was ignored? If the ultimate point you're trying to make is that every situation should be judged based on its merits and available evidence, then I'm going to completely agree. Not about the "hell of a lot of cases" bit, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Ah yes, they should've shot the presumed innocent suspect. That is a smart and well analyzed position. Hell the president would probably agree with you. They knew he had a gun and was acting erratically and not complying. They're also on a public street. Kawasaki Nun posted:So you are advocating for non-compliance as a trigger to a death sentence? I don't think what the cops did in that video was wrong at all - you seem to think they waited too long. If more cops acted like the ones on that tape did people probably wouldn't be so hostile to them as an institution. That policing is dangerous is why police officers are afforded so many special protections in our society. If they're just a killsquad making sure business isn't disrupted then they're not really a police force im interested in having. Right, people would absolutely love when the kids watching from 2 blocks down the street get tagged by an errant 9mm fired by a known-armed suspect who was acting aggressively for several minutes. I've watched that autopsy (well, it was an errant drive-by round, but eh), and I don't loving think so. People get pissed when the cops don't intervene early enough, too. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
If the guy got shots off, then IMO the cops were late.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:And militias were worthless in 1812. That's when we nationalized the armies and got rid of them. They were almost always worthless. I'm too lazy to find Washington's letter where he basically says as much.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
Just if you ever believed the cover story that it was an accident. Notice how China didn't throw an utter shitfit? Yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Well, we launched something like a dozen strike aircraft that night, and hit a poo poo-ton of targets. All of which were C2/intel nodes. Except one. Which we sent a B-2 from St Louis to strike with five JDAMs. It was a supposed arms distribution facility, but they were using "outdated maps" except they weren't, so that story doesn't really hold up from step 1. I don't know what the gently caress they were doing, but it took all of a week for it to blow over which tells me China wasn't too upset, really.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
It would almost certainly be more effective than another ban on aesthetics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 06:55
|
|