|
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. |
On August 04 2018 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's not a strawman. In your example of the florida parking lot shooting, a jerk with an immense sense of entitlement parks in a disabled spot and then decides to shoot someone when challenged on it. It's pretty clear that his sense of entitlement allows him to shoot a person dead and feels empowered by doing so. No amount of training would had caused that jerk with an immense sense of entitlement to not shoot that person, except to change the law so he isn't entitled to shoot someone to soothe his damaged ego without repercussion.
It is an extreme strawman. Maybe you might want to look up what a strawman is because it can be multiple things. Taking something out of context, exaggerating someone's position, or leaving out context, etc. are all different forms of it, of which said poster did.
Because trained soldiers make mistakes in the field of combat, we shouldn't expect gun owners to be able to handle their own firearms in a completely different environment and under different situations responsibly. As such, we should remove guns from the equation. That is his argument, which is a textbook strawman argument. My original statement has to do with in the event a firearm is actually discharged. My solution to said problem would be to encourage people to become educated on when to actually discharge, because most people do not actually go through live firearm training exercises.
|
It's a pretty shitty example. I agree that if there must be access to guns for people, then they should be stringently vetted and trained on how to handle firearms and to judge situations appropriately. We don't disagree on that.
But that parking lot shooting is an utterly terrible example by sheer dint that the person who decided to fire his firearm into a surrendering person, was to him an entirely appropriate decision: the correct assessment that he can get away freely with satisfying his ego by shooting the offending person dead, because of the stand your ground gunlaw. It wouldn't had mattered whether he was trained to not fire his firearm except when appropriate, the man in question had already decided to fire his firearm even when not approriate and the only though process remaining was whether he can legally be free to do so without repercussion, which in this case he was right to do so.
|
On August 04 2018 08:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's a pretty shitty example. I agree that if there must be access to guns for people, then they should be stringently vetted and trained on how to handle firearms and to judge situations appropriately. We don't disagree on that.
But that parking lot shooting is an utterly terrible example by sheer dint that the person who decided to fire his firearm into a surrendering person, was to him an entirely appropriate decision: the correct assessment that he can get away freely with satisfying his ego by shooting the offending person dead, because of the stand your ground gunlaw. It wouldn't had mattered whether he was trained to not fire his firearm except when appropriate, the man in question had already decided to fire his firearm even when not approriate and the only though process remaining was whether he can legally be free to do so without repercussion, which in this case he was right to do so.
Which is why I've stated that the stand your ground law needs to be done away with and self-defense laws need to be much more strict, along with more stringent education requirements on obtaining a firearm. The amount of times I've seen someone mishandle a firearm at the range is unreal; people make silly and basic errors all the time in the handling of their firearm, and I'm surprised more accidents don't occur. Alot of those problems go away once you've been properly educated on how to handle a firearm.
|
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit and fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target he wanted to (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) .
Go and admit that is a terrible example already and use a better one.
|
On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to.
Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning.
Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high.
|
On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high.
This is very true and probably one of the most important aspects of firearms training. Just like how a car license requires you to learn about when you're not fit to drive, what to do if you lose control over your vehicle, and basic first aid, firearms training should educate you in when it's not appropriate to shoot, proper handling and storage, and what to do when things go really bad.
edit: Oh, and I should have pointed out: You learn the consequences of your actions, but that is only if there are consequences to begin with. Shit like stand your ground needs to go as well
|
In an ideal world full of sane people, no one would have guns and we'd all settle our differences with words and maybe fists and then have a beer afterwards, but alas, not every country is populated by reasonable people.
In the specific case of the United States, I think it would be fair to only allow black people and Native Americans to own guns (but with mandatory training of course). Wouldn't exactly level the playing field, but would be a good start nonetheless. You don't need to be an extreme leftist or bleeding-heart liberal to hold this view. Any rational observer can see that, in most circumstances, it's perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA. A police badge is basically a licence to kill, and even civilians can get away with casual murder what with all the silly self-defence laws and broken legal system. Those folks getting killed need some kind of protection against wanton barbarism.
The rate of mass shootings would also plummet if they stopped letting white people get their crazy hands on guns. Young black people mostly just kill each other to increase their market share in the drug-selling industries declared illegal by the white man and his nefarious divide and conquer tactics. While we're on the topic of reasonable policy change, decriminalization of all drugs and full legalization of the less harmful ones would also significantly reduce gun violence, but that's another discussion.
|
On August 06 2018 13:00 reincremate wrote:
In an ideal world full of sane people, no one would have guns and we'd all settle our differences with words and maybe fists and then have a beer afterwards, but alas, not every country is populated by reasonable people.
In the specific case of the United States, I think it would be fair to only allow black people and Native Americans to own guns (but with mandatory training of course). Wouldn't exactly level the playing field, but would be a good start nonetheless. You don't need to be an extreme leftist or bleeding-heart liberal to hold this view. Any rational observer can see that, in most circumstances, it's perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA. A police badge is basically a licence to kill, and even civilians can get away with casual murder what with all the silly self-defence laws and broken legal system. Those folks getting killed need some kind of protection against wanton barbarism.
The rate of mass shootings would also plummet if they stopped letting white people get their crazy hands on guns. Young black people mostly just kill each other to increase their market share in the drug-selling businesses declared illegal by the white man and his nefarious divide and conquer tactics. While we're on the topic of reasonable policy change, decriminalization of all drugs and full legalization of the less harmful ones would also signficantly reduce gun violence, but that's another discussion.
I’m not seeing how a bona-fide racist gun control law and “it’s perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA” can ever sum up to “reasonable policy change.” Conspiracy and extreme policy prescriptions will distance you from what sane people debate on gun control. Nobody wants to be involved in debate on reforming police training or jury trials of officers and have a random rant about how this is all whitey’s fault pop up.
|
On August 06 2018 13:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 13:00 reincremate wrote:
In an ideal world full of sane people, no one would have guns and we'd all settle our differences with words and maybe fists and then have a beer afterwards, but alas, not every country is populated by reasonable people.
In the specific case of the United States, I think it would be fair to only allow black people and Native Americans to own guns (but with mandatory training of course). Wouldn't exactly level the playing field, but would be a good start nonetheless. You don't need to be an extreme leftist or bleeding-heart liberal to hold this view. Any rational observer can see that, in most circumstances, it's perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA. A police badge is basically a licence to kill, and even civilians can get away with casual murder what with all the silly self-defence laws and broken legal system. Those folks getting killed need some kind of protection against wanton barbarism.
The rate of mass shootings would also plummet if they stopped letting white people get their crazy hands on guns. Young black people mostly just kill each other to increase their market share in the drug-selling businesses declared illegal by the white man and his nefarious divide and conquer tactics. While we're on the topic of reasonable policy change, decriminalization of all drugs and full legalization of the less harmful ones would also signficantly reduce gun violence, but that's another discussion. I’m not seeing how a bona-fide racist gun control law and “it’s perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA” can ever sum up to “reasonable policy change.” Conspiracy and extreme policy prescriptions will distance you from what sane people debate on gun control. Nobody wants to be involved in debate on reforming police training or jury trials of officers and have a random rant about how this is all whitey’s fault pop up.
The US was founded on racist laws, conspiracies and extreme policy prescriptions, so this is a perfectly reasonable proposal in that context. And random rants about how everything is whitey's fault does often sway people's opinions. The O.J. Simpson murder trial was a good example of this (not that I believe he deserved to get away with murder).
|
On August 06 2018 13:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 13:00 reincremate wrote:
In an ideal world full of sane people, no one would have guns and we'd all settle our differences with words and maybe fists and then have a beer afterwards, but alas, not every country is populated by reasonable people.
In the specific case of the United States, I think it would be fair to only allow black people and Native Americans to own guns (but with mandatory training of course). Wouldn't exactly level the playing field, but would be a good start nonetheless. You don't need to be an extreme leftist or bleeding-heart liberal to hold this view. Any rational observer can see that, in most circumstances, it's perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA. A police badge is basically a licence to kill, and even civilians can get away with casual murder what with all the silly self-defence laws and broken legal system. Those folks getting killed need some kind of protection against wanton barbarism.
The rate of mass shootings would also plummet if they stopped letting white people get their crazy hands on guns. Young black people mostly just kill each other to increase their market share in the drug-selling businesses declared illegal by the white man and his nefarious divide and conquer tactics. While we're on the topic of reasonable policy change, decriminalization of all drugs and full legalization of the less harmful ones would also signficantly reduce gun violence, but that's another discussion. I’m not seeing how a bona-fide racist gun control law and “it’s perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA” can ever sum up to “reasonable policy change.” Conspiracy and extreme policy prescriptions will distance you from what sane people debate on gun control. Nobody wants to be involved in debate on reforming police training or jury trials of officers and have a random rant about how this is all whitey’s fault pop up.
His prescription is far more sensible and justifiable than arming teachers, but you still think you're part of the "sane people debate".
|
On August 06 2018 14:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 13:20 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2018 13:00 reincremate wrote:
In an ideal world full of sane people, no one would have guns and we'd all settle our differences with words and maybe fists and then have a beer afterwards, but alas, not every country is populated by reasonable people.
In the specific case of the United States, I think it would be fair to only allow black people and Native Americans to own guns (but with mandatory training of course). Wouldn't exactly level the playing field, but would be a good start nonetheless. You don't need to be an extreme leftist or bleeding-heart liberal to hold this view. Any rational observer can see that, in most circumstances, it's perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA. A police badge is basically a licence to kill, and even civilians can get away with casual murder what with all the silly self-defence laws and broken legal system. Those folks getting killed need some kind of protection against wanton barbarism.
The rate of mass shootings would also plummet if they stopped letting white people get their crazy hands on guns. Young black people mostly just kill each other to increase their market share in the drug-selling businesses declared illegal by the white man and his nefarious divide and conquer tactics. While we're on the topic of reasonable policy change, decriminalization of all drugs and full legalization of the less harmful ones would also signficantly reduce gun violence, but that's another discussion. I’m not seeing how a bona-fide racist gun control law and “it’s perfectly legal to murder unarmed black people in the USA” can ever sum up to “reasonable policy change.” Conspiracy and extreme policy prescriptions will distance you from what sane people debate on gun control. Nobody wants to be involved in debate on reforming police training or jury trials of officers and have a random rant about how this is all whitey’s fault pop up. His prescription is far more sensible and justifiable than arming teachers, but you still think you're part of the "sane people debate".
I think we should arm teachers (and not just the black teachers). But instead of guns, we should give them cool melee weapons like nunchucks. Even if they're ineffective, the deterrence value and coolness factor will make it worth the taxpayer dollars. I'm not a pacifist and I do believe guns have legitimate uses, but in my humble opinion I think that guns are mostly for weak people who are too scared of a fair fight or a real challenge. Melee weapons, in contrast, can result in badass situations like: kid walks in with a gun, *BAM* smacked in the face with nunchucks and gun knocked out of kid's hands in one fell swoop.
|
On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high.
Of course any amount of deescalation traing as well as handling training is welcome if you hand out guns and allow them to be shot. I am with oyu on that. I just don't understand why you believe bringing up professionals accidentally shooting innocents helps your standpoint that this is all you need. Your argument is, we should give people that have never encountered life threatening problems in their life a 1 week workshop on gun safety because even people who are under constant threat of life occasionally murder innocents defending themselves. And when we do that, our problems are gone. That's like saying, we will raise the speed limit in cities to 120 mph. But as sometimes even formula 1 drivers crash their cars, we give everyone another week of additional training on drifting and regaining control of your car.
Professionals murdering unarmed people because they are afraid is the perfect argument why having your society saturated with guns is bad. The fact that your police regularly kills people that are no threat shows that giving individuals guns can only result in more death. No civilian with NRA training will overcome this problem. It might soften the problem but in the end, if you are afraid and you have the power to stop the perceivd threat right there, you will shoot.
|
On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high.
If, as you admit, the problem with your example is stand your ground law, then it makes no sense to use an example as where better firearms handling would had solved the problem as the "murderer" appears to have perfectly fine command of his weapon.
Your example is not an argument that supports that firearms or de-escalation training would had prevented him from firing that weapon. You could had chosen any example where training might have helped prevent a loss of life, but this isn't one of them. I don't know why you are so intransient about this, as I am helping you so your arguments isn't so full of holes. But I guess you just like to rant nonsense. In that case, carry on, I'll leave you to it.
|
On August 06 2018 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high. Of course any amount of deescalation traing as well as handling training is welcome if you hand out guns and allow them to be shot. I am with oyu on that. I just don't understand why you believe bringing up professionals accidentally shooting innocents helps your standpoint that this is all you need. Your argument is, we should give people that have never encountered life threatening problems in their life a 1 week workshop on gun safety because even people who are under constant threat of life occasionally murder innocents defending themselves. And when we do that, our problems are gone. That's like saying, we will raise the speed limit in cities to 120 mph. But as sometimes even formula 1 drivers crash their cars, we give everyone another week of additional training on drifting and regaining control of your car. Professionals murdering unarmed people because they are afraid is the perfect argument why having your society saturated with guns is bad. The fact that your police regularly kills people that are no threat shows that giving individuals guns can only result in more death. No civilian with NRA training will overcome this problem. It might soften the problem but in the end, if you are afraid and you have the power to stop the perceivd threat right there, you will shoot.
Straw manning to the max.
Number 1, discharging the firearm is completely different from the events leading up to the discharging of the firearm. Professional soldiers are in a completely different environment, so the chain of events that lead up to them discharging their firearm (along with their training which is vastly different from how civilians and law enforcement operate) are way different. My statement was in regards to the fact that civilians should never discharge in public unless it is an absolute last resort.
Number 2, one of the number one reasons why you see improper discharge among law enforcement is due to lack of training or poor training. Who is to say that a 6 week course wouldn't assist in ensuring that someone is able to at least have a basic handle on how a firearm works, and how to handle tough situations?
Number 3, police do not regularly kill people. This is a factually false statement.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-5.xls
Below is a table showing justified homicide by law enforcement. Notice that in a country of over 300 million people, that law enforcement homicide numbers are in the hundreds. And before you start talking about how there are cases of non-justified violence, I agree. Except those numbers come up to 0 in some years. I can't find the source right now, but the total number of officers convicted has come to a little over 20 in the past 18ish years?
Unless your definition of regular is different from the rest of the world, I'd say you're talking out of your ass at this point.
On August 06 2018 21:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high. If, as you admit, the problem with your example is stand your ground law, then it makes no sense to use an example as where better firearms handling would had solved the problem as the "murderer" appears to have perfectly fine command of his weapon. Your example is not an argument that supports that firearms or de-escalation training would had prevented him from firing that weapon. You could had chosen any example where training might have helped prevent a loss of life, but this isn't one of them. I don't know why you are so intransient about this, as I am helping you so your arguments isn't so full of holes. But I guess you just like to rant nonsense. In that case, carry on, I'll leave you to it.
My example was to show why Stand your Ground laws are bad.
That's a completely separate issue from firearm education. When I talk about firearm education, I'm talking about it on a broad scope.
|
United States44352 Posts
Non-justified numbers are hard to define when the process by which homicides are justified is part of the problem being described. A cop shot a homeless guy at my local Kroger a few weeks ago because they thought he was involved in an earlier robbery. He wasn’t, he was just running from the cop because he was afraid the cop was gonna shoot him (which the cop did so he wasn’t wrong there). So far it looks like that’ll go down as justifiable because the cop feared for his life etc.
The argument that no officers were convicted so none did anything wrong won’t work because we’re not all starting from the same assumptions that officers who do something wrong are convicted.
|
On August 06 2018 22:50 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high. Of course any amount of deescalation traing as well as handling training is welcome if you hand out guns and allow them to be shot. I am with oyu on that. I just don't understand why you believe bringing up professionals accidentally shooting innocents helps your standpoint that this is all you need. Your argument is, we should give people that have never encountered life threatening problems in their life a 1 week workshop on gun safety because even people who are under constant threat of life occasionally murder innocents defending themselves. And when we do that, our problems are gone. That's like saying, we will raise the speed limit in cities to 120 mph. But as sometimes even formula 1 drivers crash their cars, we give everyone another week of additional training on drifting and regaining control of your car. Professionals murdering unarmed people because they are afraid is the perfect argument why having your society saturated with guns is bad. The fact that your police regularly kills people that are no threat shows that giving individuals guns can only result in more death. No civilian with NRA training will overcome this problem. It might soften the problem but in the end, if you are afraid and you have the power to stop the perceivd threat right there, you will shoot. Straw manning to the max. Number 1, discharging the firearm is completely different from the events leading up to the discharging of the firearm. Professional soldiers are in a completely different environment, so the chain of events that lead up to them discharging their firearm (along with their training which is vastly different from how civilians and law enforcement operate) are way different. My statement was in regards to the fact that civilians should never discharge in public unless it is an absolute last resort. Number 2, one of the number one reasons why you see improper discharge among law enforcement is due to lack of training or poor training. Who is to say that a 6 week course wouldn't assist in ensuring that someone is able to at least have a basic handle on how a firearm works, and how to handle tough situations? Number 3, police do not regularly kill people. This is a factually false statement. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-5.xlsBelow is a table showing justified homicide by law enforcement. Notice that in a country of over 300 million people, that law enforcement homicide numbers are in the hundreds. And before you start talking about how there are cases of non-justified violence, I agree. Except those numbers come up to 0 in some years. I can't find the source right now, but the total number of officers convicted has come to a little over 20 in the past 18ish years? Unless your definition of regular is different from the rest of the world, I'd say you're talking out of your ass at this point.
And hundreds of kills by police each year is way too much.
As an example, compare to the statistics from Germany:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_Germany
Those come up as roughly 10 each year. Multiply that by 4 to deal with the fact that the US has a population which is roughly four times as large, and your police still kills at least 10 times as many people as the German police.
Add to that the legitimacy problem that kwark expounds upon. If a large part of the public is of the opinion that a cop can kill a black man for fun and get away with it, you have a problem. Even if that is completely wrong, the legitimacy of the police as the enforcement arm of the rules that all of society agreed upon suffers greatly.
But i think we can agree that stand your ground laws are bad.
|
On August 06 2018 22:50 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high. Of course any amount of deescalation traing as well as handling training is welcome if you hand out guns and allow them to be shot. I am with oyu on that. I just don't understand why you believe bringing up professionals accidentally shooting innocents helps your standpoint that this is all you need. Your argument is, we should give people that have never encountered life threatening problems in their life a 1 week workshop on gun safety because even people who are under constant threat of life occasionally murder innocents defending themselves. And when we do that, our problems are gone. That's like saying, we will raise the speed limit in cities to 120 mph. But as sometimes even formula 1 drivers crash their cars, we give everyone another week of additional training on drifting and regaining control of your car. Professionals murdering unarmed people because they are afraid is the perfect argument why having your society saturated with guns is bad. The fact that your police regularly kills people that are no threat shows that giving individuals guns can only result in more death. No civilian with NRA training will overcome this problem. It might soften the problem but in the end, if you are afraid and you have the power to stop the perceivd threat right there, you will shoot. Straw manning to the max. Number 1, discharging the firearm is completely different from the events leading up to the discharging of the firearm. Professional soldiers are in a completely different environment, so the chain of events that lead up to them discharging their firearm (along with their training which is vastly different from how civilians and law enforcement operate) are way different. My statement was in regards to the fact that civilians should never discharge in public unless it is an absolute last resort. Number 2, one of the number one reasons why you see improper discharge among law enforcement is due to lack of training or poor training. Who is to say that a 6 week course wouldn't assist in ensuring that someone is able to at least have a basic handle on how a firearm works, and how to handle tough situations? Number 3, police do not regularly kill people. This is a factually false statement. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-5.xlsBelow is a table showing justified homicide by law enforcement. Notice that in a country of over 300 million people, that law enforcement homicide numbers are in the hundreds. And before you start talking about how there are cases of non-justified violence, I agree. Except those numbers come up to 0 in some years. I can't find the source right now, but the total number of officers convicted has come to a little over 20 in the past 18ish years? Unless your definition of regular is different from the rest of the world, I'd say you're talking out of your ass at this point. Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 21:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 05 2018 08:34 superstartran wrote:On August 05 2018 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but surely you must agree that this is a pretty bad example of where strigent education requirements would had taken the problem away. This isn't a case of mishandling a firearm, it is simply outright legal "murder".
You could had used any situation and example apart from that example, but for some reason you used the sole example where stand your ground legislation is the problem, not how to handle a firearm. The man handled his firearm just fine, he didn't misfire or misaim. He hit fired exactly when he wanted to, into the target (in this case a retreating and formerly alive human body) he wanted to. Knowing proper times to disengage only comes with education and training. A law change may curb some of the incidents, but it won't remove them completely. The example I showed was merely a problem with the stand your ground law, when I'm talking about proper education I'm talking on a broader scope. Again, strawmanning. Not to mention firearm education is more than just knowing how to properly handle your firearm, it's also about situational awareness of when to draw your firearm, when to discharge, where to aim, how to handle tough situations when adrenaline is running high. If, as you admit, the problem with your example is stand your ground law, then it makes no sense to use an example as where better firearms handling would had solved the problem as the "murderer" appears to have perfectly fine command of his weapon. Your example is not an argument that supports that firearms or de-escalation training would had prevented him from firing that weapon. You could had chosen any example where training might have helped prevent a loss of life, but this isn't one of them. I don't know why you are so intransient about this, as I am helping you so your arguments isn't so full of holes. But I guess you just like to rant nonsense. In that case, carry on, I'll leave you to it. My example was to show why Stand your Ground laws are bad. That's a completely separate issue from firearm education. When I talk about firearm education, I'm talking about it on a broad scope.
So, are american police forces worse then civilans with NRA training? Or are they just as bad with weapons? Or what is your argument here? Do you acknowledge, that an average american law-enforcment officer is higher trained then a civilian, with or without NRA training. If yes, would you argue, that he or she has more experience in potentially dangerous situations and more experience in dealing with these cases? If yes, why are they still killing innocents? And yes, you have a way higher number of deaths by police then the rest of the western world. So, let me ask you this.
Do you believe that no amount of training can completely keep you from misjudging a situation and kill someone that was no threat to you and how much training are you willing to mandate every gunowner to have in order to minimize the risk of them shooting someone?
And i have to say, the boldness of you giving convictions of wrong doing as a measurement of the problem has to be recognized. All those public cases of persons of colour being shot on camera with their cellphones threatening the police might want to have a word with you though.
|
|
|
On August 06 2018 23:12 KwarK wrote:
Non-justified numbers are hard to define when the process by which homicides are justified is part of the problem being described. A cop shot a homeless guy at my local Kroger a few weeks ago because they thought he was involved in an earlier robbery. He wasn’t, he was just running from the cop because he was afraid the cop was gonna shoot him (which the cop did so he wasn’t wrong there). So far it looks like that’ll go down as justifiable because the cop feared for his life etc.
The argument that no officers were convicted so none did anything wrong won’t work because we’re not all starting from the same assumptions that officers who do something wrong are convicted.
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. Even if you use the Washington's post methodology it's still under 1000 incidents in 2017 in a country of 300 million people. That's still an incredibly low number of incidents, and stating that police officers kill people 'regularly' is statistically false.
On August 07 2018 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
[
And i have to say, the boldness of you giving convictions of wrong doing as a measurement of the problem has to be recognized. All those public cases of persons of colour being shot on camera with their cellphones threatening the police might want to have a word with you though.
One incident does not prove police officers kill people regularly. Statistics do. And statistics do not favor your case. To give you some perspective, 20 unarmed blacks were shot in the year 2017 according to most research databases (ones that are highly liberal with how they go about, but for the sake of argument I'll use those so that you don't scream bias). That includes both males and females, whether justified or not. To give you some more perspective, more people every year on average get hit and killed by lightning strikes (50ish).
This idea that police officers are running rampant in the U.S. gunning down people in the streets is completely asinine. I am not saying there isn't police brutality, nor am I saying that police officers don't abuse their powers and sometimes use lethal force when it's unnecessary. I am contesting your statement in regards to the idea that police officers in the U.S. shoot people on a regular basis; they don't.
|
On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide.
What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide.
In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide?
If you say anything that isn't a "no" ...
Edit: Also 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million is an insane amount of homicides. You can't compare that to lightning strikes (unless you are comparing number of lightning strikes on a proportional per country bias. Who knows, maybe USA suffers 20 times more deaths from proportional lightning strikes than other developed countries.) I don't even understand...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
