Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
Swatting incidents, which can result in tense and dangerous standoffs between police and confused residents, [b]have led to at least one death, leading some to call for laws that would explicitly ban the practice.
It's already illegal.. Do they want to double ban it..?
That said, having a swat team bust down your door with a no-knock warrant is not common practice anywhere else, why is it in the US? Shouldn't they at least try to gather some more intel about the situation before running in guns blazing? A phone call for instance to the house in question seems like a good start.
A phone call isn't reliable. If you're holding someone hostage you're not going to tell the police that and if the victim answers can he or she really be honest?
Swatting incidents, which can result in tense and dangerous standoffs between police and confused residents, have led to at least one death, leading some to call for laws that would explicitly ban the practice.
It's already illegal.. Do they want to double ban it..?
That said, having a swat team bust down your door with a no-knock warrant is not common practice anywhere else, why is it in the US? Shouldn't they at least try to gather some more intel about the situation before running in guns blazing? A phone call for instance to the house in question seems like a good start.
All states are different. It is already illegal in many states to call in false reports to the police. And the action could be considered reckless endangerment or some other law of that nature.
The call for a new law is to make the specific act of making a false report to the police with the intent of provoking an armed response illegal with its own separate penalties. By doing that, it allows the DA to bring charged for the specific act, rather than applying several different criminal offenses to the act in the hopes of getting an adequate sentence.
And the second part is that a lot of police in the US are bad at their job. But there are also departments that don't fall for this shit.
Swatting incidents, which can result in tense and dangerous standoffs between police and confused residents, [b]have led to at least one death, leading some to call for laws that would explicitly ban the practice.
It's already illegal.. Do they want to double ban it..?
That said, having a swat team bust down your door with a no-knock warrant is not common practice anywhere else, why is it in the US? Shouldn't they at least try to gather some more intel about the situation before running in guns blazing? A phone call for instance to the house in question seems like a good start.
A phone call isn't reliable. If you're holding someone hostage you're not going to tell the police that and if the victim answers can he or she really be honest?
No i agree, but it's a good first step. As in, if you're calling someone and the guy who picks up starts shouting for you to crawl back into the hole you came from and die, before hanging up, it's definitively time to send out the swat team. If the call is answered with "Hi, Mrs. Johnsons here. How can I help you?", then maybe only send a single patrol unit instead.
Swatting incidents, which can result in tense and dangerous standoffs between police and confused residents, [b]have led to at least one death, leading some to call for laws that would explicitly ban the practice.
It's already illegal.. Do they want to double ban it..?
That said, having a swat team bust down your door with a no-knock warrant is not common practice anywhere else, why is it in the US? Shouldn't they at least try to gather some more intel about the situation before running in guns blazing? A phone call for instance to the house in question seems like a good start.
A phone call isn't reliable. If you're holding someone hostage you're not going to tell the police that and if the victim answers can he or she really be honest?
I could google search it but i'm making a habit of not too rely too much on google anymore just to further discussion, shouldn't we have harder consequences for those who prank swat people? it's not like we have pay phones or at least i'm aware of them still existing. and i really find it hard to believe tracing a phone number is harder than fb tracing and tracking your entire identity lol
it just baffles me that if someone can track your IP and then find all these things about you, they couldn't do the same with a phone call.
On June 10 2018 09:47 saocyn wrote: I could google search it but i'm making a habit of not too rely too much on google anymore just to further discussion, shouldn't we have harder consequences for those who prank swat people? it's not like we have pay phones or at least i'm aware of them still existing. and i really find it hard to believe tracing a phone number is harder than fb tracing and tracking your entire identity lol
it just baffles me that if someone can track your IP and then find all these things about you, they couldn't do the same with a phone call.
I think the idea is that if the police starts tracing anonymous calls, then it could scare off future calls from people who actually needs the call to be anonymous. They do go all out in the cases where prank calls have actually hurt or killed people, as that is now a murder charge and they tend to be quite serious, and they do tend to catch those.
Of course it would have been better if they didn't go balls to the walls and break down doors, locked and loaded, based on a single phone call to begin with.
Five people dead qualifies as a mass shooting, right?
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
I'd say deaths are people that can no longer do ANYTHING, because someone forcefully took everything they had and ever will have... forever. That's what real "taking rights away" is.
And the reason the needle doesn't move is because congress (is bought out by the gun lobby) doesn't enact laws limiting assholes from carrying guns. Why don't you go back to the last post I quoted you and answer any of the questions you dodged... there were plenty of statistics there spelling out how the vast majority of this county is in favor of gun control and despite that, a republican controlled government won't do anything about it.
Not to mention you, I've never seen you even hint at a solution.
Can you tell me why when I literally just told you that 30 people were shot over nothing, the first thing that came to your mind wasn't "Holy shit, I hope their ok?! How do we prevent this from ever happening again?"... Instead it was, "I hope they don't take my guns away :'("
?
The only reason you don't give a shit about 30 people getting shot is because it doesn't in anyway affect your small world, past the fact that your terrified of living in the world without a gun.
It's New Jersey and a huge festival, there were definitely people there with guns (including police)... nobody stopped shit from happening by having a gun. They never do... and they never will.
Honestly, more than anything, I really do think you're a russian toll. All your posts I've read are heartless vomiting up of fox news BS about gun rights in America. Talking about "demonizing citizens" and "taking away rights" because I'm tired of innocent people getting killed for nothing... Who talks like that?
yeah sadly for people like danglar or sst, it would take an actual family member to be a victim of completely random gun violence. only then (i hope), would they see that a person dying for absolutely no reason other than the government letting people wield lethal weapons for "muh rights", is absolutely ludicrous. if it aint a loved one then "its not my problem. its fine if other people die because itll never happen to me, but dont take away my rights"
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Blaming the NRA for anyone dead from a gun. Go team gun control! You demonize those citizens! Take their rights away!
See: Reason #597 for why the needle doesn’t move. Deaths are just an excuse to rally the rhetoric.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
I'd say deaths are people that can no longer do ANYTHING, because someone forcefully took everything they had and ever will have... forever. That's what real "taking rights away" is.
And the reason the needle doesn't move is because congress (is bought out by the gun lobby) doesn't enact laws limiting assholes from carrying guns. Why don't you go back to the last post I quoted you and answer any of the questions you dodged... there were plenty of statistics there spelling out how the vast majority of this county is in favor of gun control and despite that, a republican controlled government won't do anything about it.
Not to mention you, I've never seen you even hint at a solution.
Can you tell me why when I literally just told you that 30 people were shot over nothing, the first thing that came to your mind wasn't "Holy shit, I hope their ok?! How do we prevent this from ever happening again?"... Instead it was, "I hope they don't take my guns away :'("
?
The only reason you don't give a shit about 30 people getting shot is because it doesn't in anyway affect your small world, past the fact that your terrified of living in the world without a gun.
It's New Jersey and a huge festival, there were definitely people there with guns (including police)... nobody stopped shit from happening by having a gun. They never do... and they never will.
Honestly, more than anything, I really do think you're a russian toll. All your posts I've read are heartless vomiting up of fox news BS about gun rights in America. Talking about "demonizing citizens" and "taking away rights" because I'm tired of innocent people getting killed for nothing... Who talks like that?
Blaming Team NRA after deaths only serves to show you’re after political axes to grind. I wouldn’t accuse others of “vomiting up” BS when you vomit out these lines blaming NRA after a tragedy.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
The movie you cited to prove your point makes me think your real gripe is gun rights lobbyist groups should just surrender in the face of calls to radically restrict the sale, ownership, and carry of guns. It remains only a political position that answers to gun crime must be dealt with by restricting gun rights just a little bit more. Then, emotionally charged demagogic rhetoric follows to put blood on the hands of the defenders of the second amendment. And you wonder why they put out ads painting a dim view of the future? It is pretty dim for civil rights when gun control advocates barely conceal their ultimate goal to ban guns.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
The movie you cited to prove your point makes me think your real gripe is gun rights lobbyist groups should just surrender in the face of calls to radically restrict the sale, ownership, and carry of guns. It remains only a political position that answers to gun crime must be dealt with by restricting gun rights just a little bit more. Then, emotionally charged demagogic rhetoric follows to put blood on the hands of the defenders of the second amendment. And you wonder why they put out ads painting a dim view of the future? It is pretty dim for civil rights when gun control advocates barely conceal their ultimate goal to ban guns.
This isn’t backed up by the reality of the gun safety advocates pushing for better background checks and updated laws. The demands for an outright ban of all guns is the overwhelming minority of gun control advocates in the US. There is no legitimate effort to ban all fire arms or even some fire arms in the US. It is a fiction one chooses to believe in despite overwhelming evidence it is not true.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
The movie you cited to prove your point makes me think your real gripe is gun rights lobbyist groups should just surrender in the face of calls to radically restrict the sale, ownership, and carry of guns. It remains only a political position that answers to gun crime must be dealt with by restricting gun rights just a little bit more. Then, emotionally charged demagogic rhetoric follows to put blood on the hands of the defenders of the second amendment. And you wonder why they put out ads painting a dim view of the future? It is pretty dim for civil rights when gun control advocates barely conceal their ultimate goal to ban guns.
This isn’t backed up by the reality of the gun safety advocates pushing for better background checks and updated laws. The demands for an outright ban of all guns is the overwhelming minority of gun control advocates in the US. There is no legitimate effort to ban all fire arms or even some fire arms in the US. It is a fiction one chooses to believe in despite overwhelming evidence it is not true.
From op-eds in the NYT to hysteria in the wake of AR-15/bump stocks, majorities of gun control advocates sincerely believe all guns should be banned or scary looking guns should be banned. Thought leaders, celebrities, politicians are all included. The big deal right now is convincing Americans that the people who wish for all guns to be banned, but will compromise for different background checks and minor laws right now, actually will uphold the rights of law-abiding Americans to own a gun. I absolutely disagree with you. It’s in the rhetoric, it’s in the demonization of the NRA (who the fuck even pretends to respect their defense of the second amendment? It’s all terrorism and blood on their hands talk), and it’s all over social media and TV news media and print media. I’m entirely not reassured that you represent them as an absolute minority ... only the dumb ones right now are actually voicing their support for gun bans. The rest disguise it.
“Only the minority want gay marriage, the majority are fine with legally eqivalent civil unions! We don’t care what it’s called just give us all the legal benefits!” - People wanting the opposition to be as stupid as their caricatures of the opposition are. No dice. I’ve been listening. Hell, this very forum is absolutely unapologetic for no defensible reason to own a gun and outright bans if only the second amendment could be repealed or reimagined to mean something different.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
The movie you cited to prove your point makes me think your real gripe is gun rights lobbyist groups should just surrender in the face of calls to radically restrict the sale, ownership, and carry of guns. It remains only a political position that answers to gun crime must be dealt with by restricting gun rights just a little bit more. Then, emotionally charged demagogic rhetoric follows to put blood on the hands of the defenders of the second amendment. And you wonder why they put out ads painting a dim view of the future? It is pretty dim for civil rights when gun control advocates barely conceal their ultimate goal to ban guns.
This isn’t backed up by the reality of the gun safety advocates pushing for better background checks and updated laws. The demands for an outright ban of all guns is the overwhelming minority of gun control advocates in the US. There is no legitimate effort to ban all fire arms or even some fire arms in the US. It is a fiction one chooses to believe in despite overwhelming evidence it is not true.
From op-eds in the NYT to hysteria in the wake of AR-15/bump stocks, majorities of gun control advocates sincerely believe all guns should be banned or scary looking guns should be banned. Thought leaders, celebrities, politicians are all included. The big deal right now is convincing Americans that the people who wish for all guns to be banned, but will compromise for different background checks and minor laws right now, actually will uphold the rights of law-abiding Americans to own a gun. I absolutely disagree with you. It’s in the rhetoric, it’s in the demonization of the NRA (who the fuck even pretends to respect their defense of the second amendment? It’s all terrorism and blood on their hands talk), and it’s all over social media and TV news media and print media. I’m entirely not reassured that you represent them as an absolute minority ... only the dumb ones right now are actually voicing their support for gun bans. The rest disguise it.
“Only the minority want gay marriage, the majority are fine with legally eqivalent civil unions! We don’t care what it’s called just give us all the legal benefits!” - People wanting the opposition to be as stupid as their caricatures of the opposition are. No dice. I’ve been listening. Hell, this very forum is absolutely unapologetic for no defensible reason to own a gun and outright bans if only the second amendment could be repealed or reimagined to mean something different.
If you assume bad faith on the entirety of your opposition before you even sit down to the discussion, don't be surprised if nothing happens and nobody listens to you. In fact, the very same "they're all disguising it, only the dumb ones are voicing it out loud" could be leveraged against people on your side of the aisle when it comes to racism, homophobia, and women's rights, even other segments of the gun conversation. I would hate for that to be a projection on your part, that results in refusing to even have the discussion.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
The movie you cited to prove your point makes me think your real gripe is gun rights lobbyist groups should just surrender in the face of calls to radically restrict the sale, ownership, and carry of guns. It remains only a political position that answers to gun crime must be dealt with by restricting gun rights just a little bit more. Then, emotionally charged demagogic rhetoric follows to put blood on the hands of the defenders of the second amendment. And you wonder why they put out ads painting a dim view of the future? It is pretty dim for civil rights when gun control advocates barely conceal their ultimate goal to ban guns.
This isn’t backed up by the reality of the gun safety advocates pushing for better background checks and updated laws. The demands for an outright ban of all guns is the overwhelming minority of gun control advocates in the US. There is no legitimate effort to ban all fire arms or even some fire arms in the US. It is a fiction one chooses to believe in despite overwhelming evidence it is not true.
From op-eds in the NYT to hysteria in the wake of AR-15/bump stocks, majorities of gun control advocates sincerely believe all guns should be banned or scary looking guns should be banned. Thought leaders, celebrities, politicians are all included. The big deal right now is convincing Americans that the people who wish for all guns to be banned, but will compromise for different background checks and minor laws right now, actually will uphold the rights of law-abiding Americans to own a gun. I absolutely disagree with you. It’s in the rhetoric, it’s in the demonization of the NRA (who the fuck even pretends to respect their defense of the second amendment? It’s all terrorism and blood on their hands talk), and it’s all over social media and TV news media and print media. I’m entirely not reassured that you represent them as an absolute minority ... only the dumb ones right now are actually voicing their support for gun bans. The rest disguise it.
“Only the minority want gay marriage, the majority are fine with legally eqivalent civil unions! We don’t care what it’s called just give us all the legal benefits!” - People wanting the opposition to be as stupid as their caricatures of the opposition are. No dice. I’ve been listening. Hell, this very forum is absolutely unapologetic for no defensible reason to own a gun and outright bans if only the second amendment could be repealed or reimagined to mean something different.
This is the exact same argument that liberals use against Republicans and Conservatives to “prove” they are all racist. If you are going to demand liberals ignore the overt racism by a minority in the Republican party, you can do the same for gun control advocates.
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
Yes, the NRA is completely innocent. All they're doing is pushing legislations and rhetoric to get more guns into more people's hands while painting a bleak and dystopian image of the current status of the US.
ffs stop excusing the behaviour of the biggest player in the gun industry. This isn't any better than excusing tobacco companies for pushing "cigarettes are good for you" ads. There should be zero doubt that NRA has the most blood on their hands from the civilian population in the US right now.
The movie you cited to prove your point makes me think your real gripe is gun rights lobbyist groups should just surrender in the face of calls to radically restrict the sale, ownership, and carry of guns. It remains only a political position that answers to gun crime must be dealt with by restricting gun rights just a little bit more. Then, emotionally charged demagogic rhetoric follows to put blood on the hands of the defenders of the second amendment. And you wonder why they put out ads painting a dim view of the future? It is pretty dim for civil rights when gun control advocates barely conceal their ultimate goal to ban guns.
This isn’t backed up by the reality of the gun safety advocates pushing for better background checks and updated laws. The demands for an outright ban of all guns is the overwhelming minority of gun control advocates in the US. There is no legitimate effort to ban all fire arms or even some fire arms in the US. It is a fiction one chooses to believe in despite overwhelming evidence it is not true.
From op-eds in the NYT to hysteria in the wake of AR-15/bump stocks, majorities of gun control advocates sincerely believe all guns should be banned or scary looking guns should be banned. Thought leaders, celebrities, politicians are all included. The big deal right now is convincing Americans that the people who wish for all guns to be banned, but will compromise for different background checks and minor laws right now, actually will uphold the rights of law-abiding Americans to own a gun. I absolutely disagree with you. It’s in the rhetoric, it’s in the demonization of the NRA (who the fuck even pretends to respect their defense of the second amendment? It’s all terrorism and blood on their hands talk), and it’s all over social media and TV news media and print media. I’m entirely not reassured that you represent them as an absolute minority ... only the dumb ones right now are actually voicing their support for gun bans. The rest disguise it.
“Only the minority want gay marriage, the majority are fine with legally eqivalent civil unions! We don’t care what it’s called just give us all the legal benefits!” - People wanting the opposition to be as stupid as their caricatures of the opposition are. No dice. I’ve been listening. Hell, this very forum is absolutely unapologetic for no defensible reason to own a gun and outright bans if only the second amendment could be repealed or reimagined to mean something different.
If you assume bad faith on the entirety of your opposition before you even sit down to the discussion, don't be surprised if nothing happens and nobody listens to you. In fact, the very same "they're all disguising it, only the dumb ones are voicing it out loud" could be leveraged against people on your side of the aisle when it comes to racism, homophobia, and women's rights, even other segments of the gun conversation. I would hate for that to be a projection on your part, that results in refusing to even have the discussion.
That’s a natural rejoinder. I happen to ground my disdain for “we’re not coming for your guns” in how often and quickly calls to come after guns occur in the wake of tragedy shootings. And then everybody acts like they never happened! The AR-15 proposed bans and stupid “high-capacity” ammo bans after Newtown were 24/7 talked about for weeks on end, and now banning certain guns is of course a minority view somehow. The pace of mass shootings (or the visibility, they’ve trended down) is highlighted before hordes of voices clamor for “enough is enough” gun bans, and then I’m expected to forget. Meanwhile, gun control advocates find themselves (this thread IS a good example) arguing that there isn’t even a good reason to defend owning one. Hmm. I still think the main problem is overreach from gun control advocates and the primary reason why it’s a good thing to keep the process slow and at the state level.
EPT
