EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7761
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7214 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote: Legal, you need to stop your shitposting for a while and try and establish some credibility as an intelligent human being if you want to be this sarcastic all the time. Right now when you sarcastically say dumb things people read them and go "yeah, I can see LegalLord seriously having that opinion" and then respond as if you meant it. People just aren't getting your constant sarcasm. or least please label them with a /sarcasm tag to make it clear. this is the trump era after all; poe's law (or whichver law, can't keep track of them all) is in effect. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote: Three people on a bridge wouldn't last eight minutes against an armed populace. The question isn't how long they last, the question is how many people they kill before the "populace" identifies and takes them out. In their 8 minutes, they killed 7 people. How long does it take to kill 7 people with multiple firearms? Certainly not 8 minutes. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote: Three people on a bridge wouldn't last eight minutes against an armed populace. The point is that the armed populace wouldn't last very long against itself because of a lack o adequate training and no means of identification. You can be pretty sure that the guy in the police uniform is the good guy (despite what movies may have you think) so you dont have to shoot him. If you see a plain clothes person shooting then you have no idea whats going on. There have been cases of off duty or plain clothes police officers being shot by uniformed officers because they didn't know what was going on. Now multiply that over 50-100+ people in a public area. http://abcnews.go.com/US/maryland-cop-mistook-plainclothes-officer-threat-fatal-shooting/story?id=37699834 http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/215.html TEST SETUP. In the department's indoor range, the research team hung fiberglass tarps to create eight shooting bays, each outfitted with two turning targets. The targets were 2-D, full-color, life-size photographs of male and female subjects, some threatening and some not. Included were armed targets that had a silver KCPD badge affixed either to the figure's belt or hanging from a simulated chain at chest level. The targets were programmed to simultaneously turn toward officers being tested for variable amounts of time (between one and three seconds) as they progressed among the bays. Officers were instructed to "take appropriate action"--to scan, to move and use cover, to discriminate under time compression between shoot and no-shoot targets, and to fire until adversaries were defeated. ... FIRST YEAR RESULTS. During testing the first year, 920 officers were sampled. Each fired about 125 rounds in the exercise, primarily using Glock 22 duty weapons. By Smith's estimate 65% shot at least one badge-bearing target. "Some of those initial targets looked like someone had cut loose on them with a machine gun," he says. And this test was run with the test subjects knowing before hand that plain clothes "officers" would be present throughout the exam. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:00 RealityIsKing wrote: Trump supporters are mostly people that understand how the game is being played: whatever a candidate says during the campaign doesn't necessarily mean that will be achieved (see Obama w/ him promising to pull troops out + Obamacare not working out exactly that people wanted). Their mindset is more of the traditional American standard where they fully respect the tradition of the amendments and that it is absolutely okay to be take abusive strategies to the nth degree. that's fair enough. though most politicians have a bit more sense in the nonsense they spew. and/or their goals are more reasonable, they just can't quite get to them due to political difficulties; but it wouldn't be horrible if they did. not sure what your second paragraph is about; as all sides respect the amendments about equally from what i've seen, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your final remark. | ||
KwarK
United States42339 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:36 TheTenthDoc wrote: The question isn't how long they last, the question is how many people they kill before the "populace" identifies and takes them out. In their 8 minutes, they killed 7 people. How long does it take to kill 7 people with multiple firearms? Certainly not 8 minutes. There is also a fairly large body of evidence from the attacks using guns in the United States that seems to suggest that giving terrorists guns increases their ability to kill people. Sure, we can demonstrate that terrorists with guns are more deadly than terrorists with knives using logic but we can also simply compare the instances of both. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
This isn't a game of Starcraft, you don't have a HUD that tells you what color the enemy is, and troops that fire exactly the correct amount of ammunition and only at those enemy targets. You have humans that are prone to error, and incomplete information. There is nothing to suggest that such a terror attack would have gone down better on the average case if the public were armed. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23013 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:43 LegalLord wrote: A person with a gun with no idea how to use it properly is a danger to the surroundings more than the intended target. That reminds me of this (NSFW) Pulp Fiction scene + Show Spoiler + https://youtu.be/0Ae6B7C05Nk Probably a good time to remind folks that police officers miss more of their shots than they hit. Whether one wants to say police are properly trained or trained better than a typical civilian is another story. Basically the idea that an armed populace would handle it better is totally ridiculous to even suggest, let alone argue for. + Show Spoiler + (Keep in mind I'm a gun owner). | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13388 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:18 biology]major wrote: Most republican policies/philosophy revolve around the fact that people have the awareness and ability to make correct/moral decisions. In an environment where that is true, giving everyone guns would indeed be the right thing to do to defend terrorism/violence from the few bad apples. right wingers would argue the personal responsibility route to the grave. Your stance is essentially "people aren't good enough to handle this responsibility" which is fine! Just don't make it seem like guns are evil or bad, just say people aren't good. It has nothing to do with people being good or bad. It has everything to do with people not being trained or level headed enough to make rational calm decisions in a state of panic. If you saw one guy is shooting its easy to know who is wrong. If there are two people shooting eachother, and theres no one else around, its not so easy to have some idea of who is wrong. If there are 30 people all with guns then there is no way to know wtf is going on. Guns are not evil. They have their place for various activities. But in my opinion, walking around in public isn't one of them generally. I understand that people might want to defend themselves or their property in case of some sort of invasion into their private living space. But its so much more complicated when its public space. You can have all the guns you want to go hunting, or protect your home from an invader, or even go to a gun range for marksmanship. I don't care to be honest. I don't think having a loaded pistol in an unlocked drawer is a good idea, but if you have bullets seperated from the gun and both locked up in some way so as to prevent accidental discharge, do whatever you want. But in public I don't trust it. Too many factors and people can make too many poor heat of the moment decisions to handle the responsibility. Even trained police officers shoot people and freak out and end up killing what turn out to be innocent, non violent people. So no, I don't want those guns in the hands of the random public in those kinds of scenarios. It will just cause much more confusion and lead to more deaths. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
I would not trust my cousin who has a concealed carry permit to save the day in most cases because a Lutheran pastor has 0 idea what being in that type of situation is like or how to handle it correctly. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23013 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:52 LegalLord wrote: Incidentally worth pointing out how stupid the "shoot them in the leg" argument is in light of how hard it is to properly shoot at people. Shooting to wound isn't absurd (in certain circumstances), but with our piss poor police force that isn't happening. Like I said, they miss more of the shots than they land, but that's not an unavoidable consequence of shooting, that's just piss poor training. Combine that with a habit for escalating situations instead of deescalating and it's a recipe for disaster. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
riotjune
United States3392 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On June 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote: So, though this might lead to a regretful direction, I think it's on the line of the current discussion: I wonder if reducing gun ownership would also help get rid of George Zimmerman figures. Sure, that was a use of self defense and he was not guilty legally, but I'm pretty sure all of us by now can agree that he was a scummy guy who put himself in a situation that led to the danger to his life. What do people think of the "guns empower stupid wannabe heroes" issue? Sure that would be fantastic but it always turns into a rights issue. "You're just trying to take everyone's guns away" because you don't want crazy losers to own them. Surely you'll just label EVERYONE a crazy person and then Obama takes all the guns and something something. We're at a point where there are seemingly too many guns to ever do anything about there being too many guns. A definite turd sandwich situation. The only "fix" at this point would be some sort of miraculous removal of hundreds of millions of guns. I fear America is too far gone in this regard. At least based on current climate, culture and technology. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On June 06 2017 02:01 On_Slaught wrote: Outside of tier 2 and up special operations guys and select SWAT teams, there is basically nobody in this country I would trust in a shootout to be accurate and effective. We don't need to turn every shooting into the O.K. corral. And I say this as someone with a CCW. You can trust me. I'll save the day with my 4 years USMC training with rifles. As long as the target is paper and not moving and we have ideal wind conditions. /s (but not really) | ||
| ||
