|
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 08 2018 05:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:25 Uldridge wrote:Dude. Get it. It's not incredibly rampant. It's an issue that should be tackled. Get it. Abuse of power is NOT GOOD. Do you get it now? Misjudging the situation and reaching for lethal force way too quickly (or just reaching for lethal force way too quickly) is NOT GOOD and is an issue that needs to be tackled. The US is pathological in its refusal to address this issue properly. Do you get it now? On August 08 2018 05:25 solidbebe wrote:
You guys dont even disagree all that much at this point youre just talking past each other lol He keeps choosing that one statistical hill he wants to die on, but we're not addressing him on that. It's super obnoxious. If he keeps doing this I'll have to assume he's a troll. More like there's zero rebuttal. The crux of his argument is that because police officers kill unarmed people with regularity in the United States, arming them would just make the situation worse. Except, police officers statistically do not kill people regularly, especially unarmed civilians. So that pretty much invalidates his point in the first place. Not to mention, his assumption is that unarmed civilians cannot be dangerous, which is categorically false as evidenced to the video I posted earlier where an unarmed suspect assaulted an officer who was trying to detain him.
This is getting tiresome. Your argument is "1000 out of 300 million is not a lot". The counterargument that you completely ignore is "It is 20 times more than in other developed nations".
Now, your next post will once again be some variation of "It is not a large number!" And thus we keep going round the rosy again and again.
And even if we take your 68 number at face value, that still means that the US police kills more unarmed people per capita then the german police kills people (per capita), period. Of course the answer to that will be "But america is totally different!"
|
You defeated your own argument by your last paragraph. The unarmed assaulter, while being detained by an officer would most definitely use deadly force with the use of a firearm if he becomes an "armed civilian" in that situation.
Also, if statistically more armed people get shot in some kind of shootout or scenario of triggerhappy cop or whatever than unarmed people are killed, then arming the unarmed people having an escalated situation with the cops will logically drive up death tolls (on both sides)
Even if his statement (police kill unarmed people by regularly) is incorrect, that doesn't necessarily mean his conclusion isn't.
|
On August 08 2018 05:40 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:32 superstartran wrote:On August 08 2018 05:25 Uldridge wrote:Dude. Get it. It's not incredibly rampant. It's an issue that should be tackled. Get it. Abuse of power is NOT GOOD. Do you get it now? Misjudging the situation and reaching for lethal force way too quickly (or just reaching for lethal force way too quickly) is NOT GOOD and is an issue that needs to be tackled. The US is pathological in its refusal to address this issue properly. Do you get it now? On August 08 2018 05:25 solidbebe wrote:
You guys dont even disagree all that much at this point youre just talking past each other lol He keeps choosing that one statistical hill he wants to die on, but we're not addressing him on that. It's super obnoxious. If he keeps doing this I'll have to assume he's a troll. More like there's zero rebuttal. The crux of his argument is that because police officers kill unarmed people with regularity in the United States, arming them would just make the situation worse. Except, police officers statistically do not kill people regularly, especially unarmed civilians. So that pretty much invalidates his point in the first place. Not to mention, his assumption is that unarmed civilians cannot be dangerous, which is categorically false as evidenced to the video I posted earlier where an unarmed suspect assaulted an officer who was trying to detain him. This is getting tiresome. Your argument is "1000 out of 300 million is not a lot". The counterargument that you completely ignore is "It is 20 times more than in other developed nations". Now, your next post will once again be some variation of "It is not a large number!" And thus we keep going round the rosy again and again. And even if we take your 68 number at face value, that still means that the US police kills more unarmed people per capita then the german police kills people (per capita), period. Of course the answer to that will be "But america is totally different!"
And Europe in general has had far more large scale terrorist attacks in the past two decades than the United States. Do I get to say your national security in general sucks now? Not taking into account various different geographic, cultural, and economic factors is going to lead to a shit show of a comparison.
|
And now the debate beings about what a counts as a “large scale” terror attack. And we will keep arguing over pointless semantics until the end of time, which seems to be the goal.
|
On August 08 2018 05:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:40 Simberto wrote:On August 08 2018 05:32 superstartran wrote:On August 08 2018 05:25 Uldridge wrote:Dude. Get it. It's not incredibly rampant. It's an issue that should be tackled. Get it. Abuse of power is NOT GOOD. Do you get it now? Misjudging the situation and reaching for lethal force way too quickly (or just reaching for lethal force way too quickly) is NOT GOOD and is an issue that needs to be tackled. The US is pathological in its refusal to address this issue properly. Do you get it now? On August 08 2018 05:25 solidbebe wrote:
You guys dont even disagree all that much at this point youre just talking past each other lol He keeps choosing that one statistical hill he wants to die on, but we're not addressing him on that. It's super obnoxious. If he keeps doing this I'll have to assume he's a troll. More like there's zero rebuttal. The crux of his argument is that because police officers kill unarmed people with regularity in the United States, arming them would just make the situation worse. Except, police officers statistically do not kill people regularly, especially unarmed civilians. So that pretty much invalidates his point in the first place. Not to mention, his assumption is that unarmed civilians cannot be dangerous, which is categorically false as evidenced to the video I posted earlier where an unarmed suspect assaulted an officer who was trying to detain him. This is getting tiresome. Your argument is "1000 out of 300 million is not a lot". The counterargument that you completely ignore is "It is 20 times more than in other developed nations". Now, your next post will once again be some variation of "It is not a large number!" And thus we keep going round the rosy again and again. And even if we take your 68 number at face value, that still means that the US police kills more unarmed people per capita then the german police kills people (per capita), period. Of course the answer to that will be "But america is totally different!" And Europe in general has had far more large scale terrorist attacks in the past two decades than the United States. Do I get to say your national security in general sucks now? Not taking into account various different geographic, cultural, and economic factors is going to lead to a shit show of a comparison.
You don't think school shootings are terrorist attacks? The las vegas shooter? The charleston church shooting?
Honestly not sure what point youre even trying to make here.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Or you couldn't tunnelvision on semantics and keep addressing his faulty points. There should be a flaw in his logic even he can be perceptive to.
|
On August 08 2018 05:59 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:48 superstartran wrote:On August 08 2018 05:40 Simberto wrote:On August 08 2018 05:32 superstartran wrote:On August 08 2018 05:25 Uldridge wrote:Dude. Get it. It's not incredibly rampant. It's an issue that should be tackled. Get it. Abuse of power is NOT GOOD. Do you get it now? Misjudging the situation and reaching for lethal force way too quickly (or just reaching for lethal force way too quickly) is NOT GOOD and is an issue that needs to be tackled. The US is pathological in its refusal to address this issue properly. Do you get it now? On August 08 2018 05:25 solidbebe wrote:
You guys dont even disagree all that much at this point youre just talking past each other lol He keeps choosing that one statistical hill he wants to die on, but we're not addressing him on that. It's super obnoxious. If he keeps doing this I'll have to assume he's a troll. More like there's zero rebuttal. The crux of his argument is that because police officers kill unarmed people with regularity in the United States, arming them would just make the situation worse. Except, police officers statistically do not kill people regularly, especially unarmed civilians. So that pretty much invalidates his point in the first place. Not to mention, his assumption is that unarmed civilians cannot be dangerous, which is categorically false as evidenced to the video I posted earlier where an unarmed suspect assaulted an officer who was trying to detain him. This is getting tiresome. Your argument is "1000 out of 300 million is not a lot". The counterargument that you completely ignore is "It is 20 times more than in other developed nations". Now, your next post will once again be some variation of "It is not a large number!" And thus we keep going round the rosy again and again. And even if we take your 68 number at face value, that still means that the US police kills more unarmed people per capita then the german police kills people (per capita), period. Of course the answer to that will be "But america is totally different!" And Europe in general has had far more large scale terrorist attacks in the past two decades than the United States. Do I get to say your national security in general sucks now? Not taking into account various different geographic, cultural, and economic factors is going to lead to a shit show of a comparison. You don't think school shootings are terrorist attacks? The las vegas shooter? The charleston church shooting? Honestly not sure what point youre even trying to make here. + Show Spoiler +
I'm not going to argue the semantics of my point, I'm merely pointing out that cross comparing countries without accounting for all the various different factors is going to lead to an absolute shit show.
|
The one thing I have learned from this thread is that gun violence in the US cannot be compared to anything in human existence. It is unique and no solution in existence can be applied to address any issues without endless systematic harm to the second amendment. Therefore, we must accept the status quo as no solution has been or can be found.
|
On August 08 2018 05:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:25 Uldridge wrote:Dude. Get it. It's not incredibly rampant. It's an issue that should be tackled. Get it. Abuse of power is NOT GOOD. Do you get it now? Misjudging the situation and reaching for lethal force way too quickly (or just reaching for lethal force way too quickly) is NOT GOOD and is an issue that needs to be tackled. The US is pathological in its refusal to address this issue properly. Do you get it now? On August 08 2018 05:25 solidbebe wrote:
You guys dont even disagree all that much at this point youre just talking past each other lol He keeps choosing that one statistical hill he wants to die on, but we're not addressing him on that. It's super obnoxious. If he keeps doing this I'll have to assume he's a troll. More like there's zero rebuttal. The crux of his argument is that because police officers kill unarmed people with regularity in the United States, arming them would just make the situation worse. Except, police officers statistically do not kill people regularly, especially unarmed civilians. So that pretty much invalidates his point in the first place. Not to mention, his assumption is that unarmed civilians cannot be dangerous, which is categorically false as evidenced to the video I posted earlier where an unarmed suspect assaulted an officer who was trying to detain him. Criminals in generally don't play by the rules either (you know..... they are criminals). Why would you have to disarm private citizens if the private citizens as a whole generally are responsible? Do you unleash a bug bomb in your house because you saw one roach? No. You respond with solutions in proportion to the problem itself. I think gun violence is a problem in the United States, it's just not as big of a problem as people love to make it out to be. It can also be solved without having to take away people's guns.
Okay, i give up trying to discuss with you. You seem to be cabable of normal rational thought but then you completely shut that down and ignore every basic rule of discourse. I cannot know if you are doing it on purpose or if you really are incapable of arguing in this regard. Both make you not look good from a neutral standpoint.
I have now retracted my initial statement that you want to argue against and explained my line of thinking 4 times if i recall correctly and not once have you adressed any of it. Instead you chose my first post as the hill you wanna die on and come back to that even if i explain to you in the very post you are quoting that my first post is irrelevant to my argument. And your counterpoint: BUT IN HIS FIRST POST HE...
Seriously. And you call me out for strawmanning.
|
On August 08 2018 07:01 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:32 superstartran wrote:On August 08 2018 05:25 Uldridge wrote:Dude. Get it. It's not incredibly rampant. It's an issue that should be tackled. Get it. Abuse of power is NOT GOOD. Do you get it now? Misjudging the situation and reaching for lethal force way too quickly (or just reaching for lethal force way too quickly) is NOT GOOD and is an issue that needs to be tackled. The US is pathological in its refusal to address this issue properly. Do you get it now? On August 08 2018 05:25 solidbebe wrote:
You guys dont even disagree all that much at this point youre just talking past each other lol He keeps choosing that one statistical hill he wants to die on, but we're not addressing him on that. It's super obnoxious. If he keeps doing this I'll have to assume he's a troll. More like there's zero rebuttal. The crux of his argument is that because police officers kill unarmed people with regularity in the United States, arming them would just make the situation worse. Except, police officers statistically do not kill people regularly, especially unarmed civilians. So that pretty much invalidates his point in the first place. Not to mention, his assumption is that unarmed civilians cannot be dangerous, which is categorically false as evidenced to the video I posted earlier where an unarmed suspect assaulted an officer who was trying to detain him. Criminals in generally don't play by the rules either (you know..... they are criminals). Why would you have to disarm private citizens if the private citizens as a whole generally are responsible? Do you unleash a bug bomb in your house because you saw one roach? No. You respond with solutions in proportion to the problem itself. I think gun violence is a problem in the United States, it's just not as big of a problem as people love to make it out to be. It can also be solved without having to take away people's guns. Okay, i give up trying to discuss with you. You seem to be cabable of normal rational thought but then you completely shut that down and ignore every basic rule of discourse. I cannot know if you are doing it on purpose or if you really are incapable of arguing in this regard. Both make you not look good from a neutral standpoint. I have now retracted my initial statement that you want to argue against and explained my line of thinking 4 times if i recall correctly and not once have you adressed any of it. Instead you chose my first post as the hill you wanna die on and come back to that even if i explain to you in the very post you are quoting that my first post is irrelevant to my argument. And your counterpoint: BUT IN HIS FIRST POST HE... Seriously. And you call me out for strawmanning.
'Neutral standpoint'
You paint a picture as though the United States is a police state where the police can just arbitrarily decide to summarily execute you on the spot and get away with it. Then you back up and said "THAT WASN'T MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENT"
You were called out. Period.
On August 08 2018 06:19 Plansix wrote:
The one thing I have learned from this thread is that gun violence in the US cannot be compared to anything in human existence. It is unique and no solution in existence can be applied to address any issues without endless systematic harm to the second amendment. Therefore, we must accept the status quo as no solution has been or can be found.
Because the U.S. is culturally and socially a very different place from many different parts of the world. I'm not going to compare crime rates in Japan versus crime rates in say Germany and then proceed to call Germany a shithole because Japan's crime rates make them look bad. The United States geographically much larger, encompasses many different populations, and in generally as developed very different as a society from many European countries. Trying to just say "LOOK HERE COUNTRY X DID IT HOW COME YOU CAN'T" is a stupid statement.
|
It was a Saturday afternoon in the park, the Florida sunshine barreling down out of a cloudless sky. More than 150 kids flew around the grass, pinballing between two bounce houses and a pavilion. Organizers dubbed the occasion “Peace in the City,” an anti-violence back-to-school event in Titusville, a town on the Sunshine State’s Atlantic coast 45 minutes east of Orlando.
Dwight Harvey, an adult who was DJing at the party, had his cellphone trained on the festivities, live-streaming to his Facebook page as kids and their parents rifled through backpacks stuffed with new school supplies.
Then the gunshots started. A dozen blasts. Laughter turning to screams. Parents frantically shouting names.
“Y’all just witnessed a live shootout,” Harvey said into the camera once the shots stopped, in a video posted by Florida Today. “All these kids in the bounce house back here and they started shooting.”
According to police, an unnamed shooter opened fire in the park crowded with schoolchildren but an armed bystander intervened, shooting the gunman as he was trying to flee.
No other injuries were reported, Titusville Police Deputy Chief Todd Hutchinson said in a statement. “This suspect opened fire at a crowded public park, this could have been so much worse.”
The shooter suffered life-threatening injuries and was airlifted from the scene to a hospital, according to police. But the situation last weekend — a seemingly safe space shattered by a spray of bullets — left both parents and kids shaken.
Washington Post
Just to remind people that mass shootings have been prevented and continue to be prevented by armed civilians with carry permits. This example in Florida is one where greater tragedy was prevented. I'm very glad that Americans retain constitutional protections for owning a gun, even as states have been active in limiting our ability to carry them.
|
On August 08 2018 07:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +It was a Saturday afternoon in the park, the Florida sunshine barreling down out of a cloudless sky. More than 150 kids flew around the grass, pinballing between two bounce houses and a pavilion. Organizers dubbed the occasion “Peace in the City,” an anti-violence back-to-school event in Titusville, a town on the Sunshine State’s Atlantic coast 45 minutes east of Orlando.
Dwight Harvey, an adult who was DJing at the party, had his cellphone trained on the festivities, live-streaming to his Facebook page as kids and their parents rifled through backpacks stuffed with new school supplies.
Then the gunshots started. A dozen blasts. Laughter turning to screams. Parents frantically shouting names.
“Y’all just witnessed a live shootout,” Harvey said into the camera once the shots stopped, in a video posted by Florida Today. “All these kids in the bounce house back here and they started shooting.”
According to police, an unnamed shooter opened fire in the park crowded with schoolchildren but an armed bystander intervened, shooting the gunman as he was trying to flee.
No other injuries were reported, Titusville Police Deputy Chief Todd Hutchinson said in a statement. “This suspect opened fire at a crowded public park, this could have been so much worse.”
The shooter suffered life-threatening injuries and was airlifted from the scene to a hospital, according to police. But the situation last weekend — a seemingly safe space shattered by a spray of bullets — left both parents and kids shaken. Washington PostJust to remind people that mass shootings have been prevented and continue to be prevented by armed civilians with carry permits. This example in Florida is one where greater tragedy was prevented. I'm very glad that Americans retain constitutional protections for owning a gun, even as states have been active in limiting our ability to carry them.
Uhmm...
The unnamed shooter went into the park looking for someone he had fought with three weeks ago over a basketball game, the station reported. The individuals faced off in a fistfight. The shooter left, returned with a gun a few minutes later, and opened fire in the crowded area, police say.
As the shooter was crossing the parking lot, he was confronted by a bystander, who was licensed to carry a handgun. The shooter drew his weapon again, and the bystander shot him in the head.
“[My daughter] called me and said, ‘Mom, come get me. Someone’s been shot,’” parent Stephanie Fayson told WFTV. “I panicked. I mean, wow.”
Police say the bystander fully cooperated with investigators and no charges are expected to be filed against him. The incident, however, already has been slotted into the larger national debate about gun violence. Following the incident, the National Rifle Association shared a tweet about the Titusville situation.
Sounds like he was (almost/might still be) executed by a citizen vigilante. Responding to what may or may not have been another legal gun owner using their gun to settle a fight they lost.
Based on what we know it sounds like a Black (maybe some other ethnicity) guy was shot by a white guy (could be wrong here too) after the white guy confronted him after the gunshots. He was leaving and no longer an immediate threat to anyone who didn't confront him. The cops are fine with it because a citizen did their dirty work.
Sounds like a pretty terrible story to use to further the "good guy with a gun" myth.
|
Thats not what that sounds like at all. What it sounds like is exactly what it says:
"As the shooter was crossing the parking lot, he was confronted by a bystander, who was licensed to carry a handgun. The shooter drew his weapon again, and the bystander shot him in the head."
What exactly is the problem there? Confronting him? Shooting him after he draws his weapon? Normally I agree with your posts but that one didn't make any sense at all.
|
On August 08 2018 08:16 travis wrote:
Thats not what that sounds like at all. What it sounds like is exactly what it says:
"As the shooter was crossing the parking lot, he was confronted by a bystander, who was licensed to carry a handgun. The shooter drew his weapon again, and the bystander shot him in the head."
What exactly is the problem there? Confronting him? Shooting him after he draws his weapon? Normally I agree with your posts but that one didn't make any sense at all.
I'm not willing to make this all about what some random internet guy thinks is or isn't the case. It sounds like a "vigilante" and sounds like a "black guy" to him, but I'm not about to debate his mental presuppositions about hearing a story. It's his own mind and he can jump to whatever cockamamie conclusions he's predisposed to believe.
|
On August 08 2018 08:16 travis wrote:
Thats not what that sounds like at all. What it sounds like is exactly what it says:
"As the shooter was crossing the parking lot, he was confronted by a bystander, who was licensed to carry a handgun. The shooter drew his weapon again, and the bystander shot him in the head."
What exactly is the problem there? Confronting him? Shooting him after he draws his weapon? Normally I agree with your posts but that one didn't make any sense at all.
Because it sounds like the guy didn't stop the shooting at all. It sounds like he confronted the shooter after the event.
|
The US is culturally different from other developed countries. This thread is a great example of smug western Europeans obnoxiously trying to push their post-enlightenment values of respecting human life and basic human decency onto a country that is culturally against those things. Just because you've (supposedly) moved beyond barbarism, doesn't mean you have to sit on your high horse and admonish people on another continent for their cultural barbarism. I hope we can all learn to respect cultural differences and accept America for the country that it is.
|
On August 08 2018 10:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 08:16 travis wrote:
Thats not what that sounds like at all. What it sounds like is exactly what it says:
"As the shooter was crossing the parking lot, he was confronted by a bystander, who was licensed to carry a handgun. The shooter drew his weapon again, and the bystander shot him in the head."
What exactly is the problem there? Confronting him? Shooting him after he draws his weapon? Normally I agree with your posts but that one didn't make any sense at all. Because it sounds like the guy didn't stop the shooting at all. It sounds like he confronted the shooter after the event.
Exactly.
Let's go through this godawful bullshit attempt by Danglars.
Just to remind people that mass shootings have been prevented and continue to be prevented by armed civilians with carry permits.
That's a completely unrelated comment. Completely extraneous to the story quoted. But it does help manipulate the next carefully worded point, leading a casual reader to interpret it to mean something it didn't.
This example in Florida is one where greater tragedy was prevented.
The "greater tragedy" that was prevented was this guy going home. He was shot after the incident was over (where no one was shot).
I'm very glad that Americans retain constitutional protections for owning a gun, even as states have been active in limiting our ability to carry them.
This is just an empty statement that looks like someone filling up a word count.
I'm not willing to make this all about what some random internet guy thinks is or isn't the case.
roflmao, that's exactly what you did. Except you'd have to be a dunce or illiterate to not have known what you were saying was, at minimum, misleading.
|
Confronting someone who committed a non-lethal shooting after the fact and then killing him is considered heroism. Different cultural values I guess.
|
United States43219 Posts
On August 08 2018 07:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +It was a Saturday afternoon in the park, the Florida sunshine barreling down out of a cloudless sky. More than 150 kids flew around the grass, pinballing between two bounce houses and a pavilion. Organizers dubbed the occasion “Peace in the City,” an anti-violence back-to-school event in Titusville, a town on the Sunshine State’s Atlantic coast 45 minutes east of Orlando.
Dwight Harvey, an adult who was DJing at the party, had his cellphone trained on the festivities, live-streaming to his Facebook page as kids and their parents rifled through backpacks stuffed with new school supplies.
Then the gunshots started. A dozen blasts. Laughter turning to screams. Parents frantically shouting names.
“Y’all just witnessed a live shootout,” Harvey said into the camera once the shots stopped, in a video posted by Florida Today. “All these kids in the bounce house back here and they started shooting.”
According to police, an unnamed shooter opened fire in the park crowded with schoolchildren but an armed bystander intervened, shooting the gunman as he was trying to flee.
No other injuries were reported, Titusville Police Deputy Chief Todd Hutchinson said in a statement. “This suspect opened fire at a crowded public park, this could have been so much worse.”
The shooter suffered life-threatening injuries and was airlifted from the scene to a hospital, according to police. But the situation last weekend — a seemingly safe space shattered by a spray of bullets — left both parents and kids shaken. Washington PostJust to remind people that mass shootings have been prevented and continue to be prevented by armed civilians with carry permits. This example in Florida is one where greater tragedy was prevented. I'm very glad that Americans retain constitutional protections for owning a gun, even as states have been active in limiting our ability to carry them.
Your source states that the gunman was fleeing. While I'm not sympathetic to the gunman I don't know how much we can say was prevented by a vigilante executing him after the fact. Although on balance it's not like the police would have done a better job so it probably comes out a wash anyway. Were it the UK I'd argue that vigilantes taking shit into their own hand prevents the proper course of justice through the legal system where they'd be tried by a jury of their peers. In the US the vigilantes have badges and shoot to kill so I guess it's a moot point.
|
On August 08 2018 11:44 reincremate wrote:
Confronting someone who committed a non-lethal shooting after the fact and then killing him is considered heroism. Different cultural values I guess.
Which is why I have to presume the races we're favorable to the shooter. No way a black guy shoots a white guy (doesn't matter if he was actually a mass shooter and not some hot head with a gun and bluster) and not get violently arrested.
Just doesn't happen in this country. That they've already basically cleared this guy of what could be a fatal shooting (shot him in the head so he was trying to kill him) means the guy can't be a minority unless he's a directly connected to the police.
Admittedly I also used some context clues/racist stereotypes/personal experience to piece together what the report leaves out.
Additionally if the identities played in the polices favor they would have ID'd him immediately.
People seem to think because they hadn't really ever thought about a lot of this stuff before Trump that no one else did either. No. They'd step in it a lot less if they came to grips with that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
