logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 649

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Who writes these protocols? Who administers the training? Who decides on the standards?

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157761427787777

Every time another one of these mass shootings happen - right when the Republicans start telling us that the answer is more guns, guns for everyone, guns for teachers, guns for students - I think about Chris Kyle.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157915056803840

Chris Kyle was the American Sniper guy - a highly decorated Navy Seal sniper with 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. Whatever else is true about him, he definitely was very good at shooting guns and used to being in combat environments.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158367697723392

Kyle knew that the man he was with was dangerous. He knew he was armed - he armed him! To the degree that anyone could be forewarned and prepared for a situation, Kyle was. And yet the other guy shot two armed and trained men dead, got in a car and drove away.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158835043774470

Today a bunch of men are going to go to a gun store and they’re going to buy their third or 10th or 25th gun, because this scares them, and they think the gun is going to keep them safe.

You tell me in which scenario does a nut with gun have a better can at killing a lot of people.

  1. Going into a school where no one is armed.
  2. Going into a police station full of armed cops.

Or instead of hypotheticals, let’s use real numbers:

23 percent of emergency department shootings involved a perpetrator taking a gun from a security officer

But that’s in hospitals. Maybe schools are different.

Maybe these security officers need better training and maybe they need holsters better designed to prevent a perp from doing that.

Honestly the way some of you are talking, it is a wonder you don’t post that you think cops should no longer carry guns. Maybe the military as well.

Yeah I’m not crazy about the fact that cops have the ability to kill people. That’s something that needs fixing.

First of all, I don’t believe in the death penalty, and that’s after due process. So I certainly don’t think a cop should have that power.

So you don’t think a cop should have the ability to defend himself/herself. Got it. ok. I am not going waste my time engaging you on such stupidity.

Putting aside your personal attack, I never said cops shouldn’t have the ability to defend themselves.

You think they shouldn’t carry guns, the kinda leaves them defenseless against bad guys. I could probably look up countless stories where if the cop didn’t have a gun, he’d be dead. There was story a couple years ago in Philly. Some nut just walks up to a cop car and tries to shoot the cop inside. The cop nearly died, and he would have if hadn’t had his gun to defend himself.

To equal cops defending themselves against bad guys to the death penalty is stupidity. One is self defense and defense of the innocent civilians(including children), the other is a form of punishment.

Defending yourself should not equal killing someone.

Sometimes it is either the cop or the bad guy, take your pick.

Too often the cop kills someone that wasn’t a threat because he thought that the guy might have been a threat. That’s why I don’t trust cops with guns. By the way, I don’t really trust anyone’s judgement with guns, so I’m not just picking on the cops. They could shoot rubber bullets or tasers or other things. I’m just spitballing, but the real issue here is that we need to take guns off the streets so that our cops don’t need to carry guns.

ask any expert an he’ll/she’ll tell you a taser isn’t anywhere near as effect as gun. It can’t nearly as many “rounds” as a gun and you have to be close enough to use them. As for rubber bullets, I have no idea how effective they are as compared to real bullets.

Author
Time

If we ban civilians from owning semi-automatic rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever they’re called, will there be less mass shootings or more?

Author
Time

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157761427787777

Every time another one of these mass shootings happen - right when the Republicans start telling us that the answer is more guns, guns for everyone, guns for teachers, guns for students - I think about Chris Kyle.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157915056803840

Chris Kyle was the American Sniper guy - a highly decorated Navy Seal sniper with 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. Whatever else is true about him, he definitely was very good at shooting guns and used to being in combat environments.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158367697723392

Kyle knew that the man he was with was dangerous. He knew he was armed - he armed him! To the degree that anyone could be forewarned and prepared for a situation, Kyle was. And yet the other guy shot two armed and trained men dead, got in a car and drove away.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158835043774470

Today a bunch of men are going to go to a gun store and they’re going to buy their third or 10th or 25th gun, because this scares them, and they think the gun is going to keep them safe.

You tell me in which scenario does a nut with gun have a better can at killing a lot of people.

  1. Going into a school where no one is armed.
  2. Going into a police station full of armed cops.

Or instead of hypotheticals, let’s use real numbers:

23 percent of emergency department shootings involved a perpetrator taking a gun from a security officer

But that’s in hospitals. Maybe schools are different.

Maybe these security officers need better training and maybe they need holsters better designed to prevent a perp from doing that.

Honestly the way some of you are talking, it is a wonder you don’t post that you think cops should no longer carry guns. Maybe the military as well.

Yeah I’m not crazy about the fact that cops have the ability to kill people. That’s something that needs fixing.

First of all, I don’t believe in the death penalty, and that’s after due process. So I certainly don’t think a cop should have that power.

So you don’t think a cop should have the ability to defend himself/herself. Got it. ok. I am not going waste my time engaging you on such stupidity.

We manage just fine in the UK without letting our Police execute members of the public

  1. the UK isn’t the US. Many more badguys are armed here.

  2. execute is not the same as defense.

(specialist fire-arms officers aside).

wait, you have them, why? Why should they get to execute members of the public? No one should have that right, correct?

  1. yhwx answered this one very well above.

where did he answer why these specialist fire-arms officer have the right to execute someone but a regular cop does not.

Yeah, somehow, I don’t think that would work.

  1. In what way is it different in a practical application? If you give the Police free reign to execute people they feel threatened by, they will use it in many cases.

FFS! DEFEND THEMSELVES AND INNOCENTS!, NOT EXECUTE! DEFEND!!!

They are Police, so they encounter threatening people all day, it’s their (difficult) job. If our Police encounter somebody who has a gun, or could possibly have a gun (which is incredibly unlikely in the UK) they can call in specialist firearms backup as a last resort. Making the ultimate and final punishment available as the first response to a pressure situation is playing with public safety (I’m also against the deathly-penalty by the way).

I cant see how this works

Cop to badguy: “Hey Mr. Badguy, could you stop firing your gun right now? You see, they don’t let us regular cops carry guns, so I have to call up a specialist fire-arms officer. He can execute people, but I can’t. It should only take five to ten minutes, then you can continue to fire. Thankyou”

Yeah, I don’t think it would work.

And they’d still be executing someone right? Something you don’t think anyone should have the right to do.

  1. See answer to 2. Also UK fire-arms Police do not “have that right” to execute people in the way you’d compare it to US Police. If they use lethal force they have to be able to justify it in a court of law.

American Cops are also answerable to the courts.

A world away from “He looked at me funny”, or “He reached into his glove box, so I executed him on the spot just in case he was going to do something” no questions asked.

Oh good God.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

If we ban civilians from owning semi-automatic rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever they’re called, will there be less mass shootings or more?

I would think less, but a ban is never going to happen. Too much opposition.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

If we ban civilians from owning semi-automatic rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever they’re called, will there be less mass shootings or more?

I would think less, but a ban is never going to happen. Too much opposition.

So let’s not even try, right? Ugh.

Author
Time

We may be at a turning point in our society when it comes to guns but if so it’s going to be a wide curve. Firearms used to be very common and useful tools (for hunting and self defense). Schools used to have shooting clubs. Many people still appreciate the practical uses, the tradition, and the sport. More and more people don’t. And like CatBus said some pages ago (on the topic of ‘free range’ kids), we are far more risk averse as a society today than we used to be. When you have an increasing number of people who have never used a firearm and have no appreciation for them, more extensive gun control becomes possible.

We have long accepted that anyone may have children and that parents have fundamental rights to determine what is right for those children. There is some pushback in modern times regarding how much say parents should have on many topics, but we still accept the basic arrangement.

A big part of it this is practical: procreation doesn’t take much work and is difficult to control. But what if we could? What if the government had greater power to determine who procreates and determine what is in the best interest of all children? As it stands many thousands of children suffer terrible abuse in this country every year at the hands of their parents. We could put an end to much abuse if we did away with the idea that parents have fundamental liberty interests in raising their children. I wager few people like this idea precisely because child-having is so common and we think there are less intrusive ways to deal with the bad apples.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

Yeah, I don’t think it would work.

…and yet it does. You do know I wasn’t describing a theory I made up, I was describing the reality of Policing in my Country?

Warbler said:

American Cops are also answerable to the courts.

I didn’t say they weren’t. I said not “in the way you’d compare it to US Police”. Take one infamous case from last year. Philando Castile, a guy who was shot dead on the spot for reaching into his glove box in a suspicious way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36732908

The Officer who killed him was acquitted of all charges. An officer in the UK in the same situation would have been hung, drawn and quartered (so to speak). Killing a member of the public is the last thing they are ever supposed to do. Sometimes it’s required as a last, last, last resort but in a situation like it did not need to happen on any sane level.

A world away from “He looked at me funny”, or “He reached into his glove box, so I executed him on the spot just in case he was going to do something” no questions asked.

Oh good God.

It’s shocking isn’t it (see example above).

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Jeebus said:

This article is 5 years old; but, sadly, still very relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/no-armed-guards-in-schools

Now, if there was a guarantee that every armed guard would be like the one in CatBus’s story, I don’t think I’d have a problem with it. But a lot of the time, the armed guard doesn’t take the role of a chill beat cop, they become the person in charge of disciplining the students.

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Author
Time

Resisting the urge to leap to judgment, but c’mon:

The school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, waited outside the school building as the shooting unfolded last week, officials said.

Scot Peterson never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

Peterson resigned after he was suspended without pay by Israel pending an internal investigation into his actions during the shooting that left 17 people dead, Israel said. Peterson was eligible for retirement.

Israel made the decision to suspend Peterson – who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting – after interviewing the deputy and reviewing footage and witness statements, he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:

“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”

It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?

Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.

Return of the Jedi: Remastered

Lord of the Rings: The Darth Rush Definitives

Author
Time

It’s not a good point at all. That’s like saying “Well, criminals will rob banks anyway, so why bother making bank robbery illegal?”

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

It’s not a good point at all. That’s like saying “Well, criminals will rob banks anyway, so why bother making bank robbery illegal?”

It’s not a good point against banning guns from civilians. But to me, it makes me question how we can make it harder for criminals to get guns since they can attain them so easily in an illegal manner despite any gun laws. It just seems like an element of our system that is leading to more violence and death and I wonder if there’s a way to help fix that within our legislation capabilities.

Return of the Jedi: Remastered

Lord of the Rings: The Darth Rush Definitives

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

If we ban civilians from owning semi-automatic rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever they’re called, will there be less mass shootings or more?

I would think less, but a ban is never going to happen. Too much opposition.

So let’s not even try, right? Ugh.

We can either try to get the optimal solution and fail or we can go for the secondary solution and maybe get something done and save lives.

Author
Time

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

Yeah, I don’t think it would work.

…and yet it does. You do know I wasn’t describing a theory I made up, I was describing the reality of Policing in my Country?

Warbler said:

American Cops are also answerable to the courts.

I didn’t say they weren’t. I said not “in the way you’d compare it to US Police”. Take one infamous case from last year. Philando Castile, a guy who was shot dead on the spot for reaching into his glove box in a suspicious way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36732908

The Officer who killed him was acquitted of all charges. An officer in the UK in the same situation would have been hung, drawn and quartered (so to speak). Killing a member of the public is the last thing they are ever supposed to do. Sometimes it’s required as a last, last, last resort but in a situation like it did not need to happen on any sane level.

A world away from “He looked at me funny”, or “He reached into his glove box, so I executed him on the spot just in case he was going to do something” no questions asked.

Oh good God.

It’s shocking isn’t it (see example above).

I could address this, but I don’t feel like getting bogged down in this kind of thing right now. But I will post a video of the shooting in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd7zW4aRlYE

Author
Time

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

Yeah, I don’t think it would work.

…and yet it does. You do know I wasn’t describing a theory I made up, I was describing the reality of Policing in my Country?

Well I would like to know what the regular unarmed cop is supposed to do while being fired upon while waiting for this specialty armed cop to arrive on the scene.

Author
Time

darthrush said:

I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:

“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”

It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?

Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.

I think the response is that mass shootings might be stopped even if most other gun crimes still occur. A gang member might get a gun to kill rivals and the occasional bystander, but a teenager won’t be able to shoot up a school.

If we’re talking about imposing strict requirements for most gun ownership we may reduce certain gun crimes, such as occurs in domestic situations. It really depends on what one expects to accomplish and whether the proposal serves that end.

I think there is a dream of stopping almost all gun crime - which is obviously ideal - but requires enormous restrictions and unless we are actually going to try to confiscate the many millions of guns in the country it will take a very very long time to solve the problem of gun deaths.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Jeebus said:

Jeebus said:

This article is 5 years old; but, sadly, still very relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/no-armed-guards-in-schools

Now, if there was a guarantee that every armed guard would be like the one in CatBus’s story, I don’t think I’d have a problem with it. But a lot of the time, the armed guard doesn’t take the role of a chill beat cop, they become the person in charge of disciplining the students.

Training can help here. Like I said, I want cops that are especially trained for school environments.

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

*rolls eyes*

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

Resisting the urge to leap to judgment, but c’mon:

The school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, waited outside the school building as the shooting unfolded last week, officials said.

Scot Peterson never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

Peterson resigned after he was suspended without pay by Israel pending an internal investigation into his actions during the shooting that left 17 people dead, Israel said. Peterson was eligible for retirement.

Israel made the decision to suspend Peterson – who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting – after interviewing the deputy and reviewing footage and witness statements, he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

Was there ever any statement or anything from Peterson as to why he didn’t go into the building?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Resisting the urge to leap to judgment, but c’mon:

The school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, waited outside the school building as the shooting unfolded last week, officials said.

Scot Peterson never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

Peterson resigned after he was suspended without pay by Israel pending an internal investigation into his actions during the shooting that left 17 people dead, Israel said. Peterson was eligible for retirement.

Israel made the decision to suspend Peterson – who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting – after interviewing the deputy and reviewing footage and witness statements, he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

Was there ever any statement or anything from Peterson as to why he didn’t go into the building?

Not yet.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

*rolls eyes*

Warbler said:

Darth Ender should have added “6) refuses to give intelligent and honest responses and instead responses with sarcasm, jokes, and wise cracks”.

Author
Time

Yeah, I suppose you are right.

Author
Time

Cruz was throwing up every kind of red flag imaginable and nothing was done. The FBI was informed. Police and social workers were put on alert. He was expelled when he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he had guns and was troubled (they were trying to get him therapy they say, but that doesn’t excuse all these signs). He tortured animals.

Whatever feelings you have on guns and gun control…this situation really calls out for a focus on mental health issues.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry. I don’t.