Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military. I’m not sure that is what you’re implying that you’d want.
"If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military." There are several things wrong with the above statement ... First, in many (most) states of the United States, you can indeed purchase a fully automatic weapon / suppressor / grenade launcher /…
Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
801–810 of 957 posts
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#802Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US has some founding morals and principles they do not forget. Excuse my french, but what the fuck are you talking about? How about imprisoning and torturing US citizens without due process in the name of a nebulous war that only gets worse the more we fight it? What about all the puppet governments we've set up so that our corporate overlords can make a quick buck at the expense of some country who's resources we…
> The US is an empire. Not based on governmental control, but based on financial control. But people in the US can remove legislatures and the top executive(the President). Do people in China have that option?
It's scary that many actually believe this and thus self-fulfill their prophecy because they don't get involved and don't vote.
To further amplify this detrimental affect, there are state-sponsored trolls/propagandists actively driving this wedge and these narratives online to attack our Democracy from within.
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#803Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument is pretty much a "no true Scotsman" type argument. You can't discard datapoints you don't like because they're not "responsible" firearm holders.
No, you can. Owning a gun for self defense is an individual decision, so individual responsibility must be considered. You can’t say that the Americans who want guns for self defense are better off without them because statistically, across the population, they increase danger.
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#804> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion.…
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#805Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a gun in your house and are responsible with it, nobody will be at risk.
That argument is pretty much a "no true Scotsman" type argument. You can't discard datapoints you don't like because they're not "responsible" firearm holders.
To overstate the point: You can’t conflate “bought a black market gun, keeps it illegally, has no training, and engages in felonious behavior on a regular basis” with “endured numerous comprehensive background checks, bought high value guns (some specialized) at retail, took hundreds of hours of training from prominent instructors, keeps them for sport and defense, obeys all applicable laws, is a practical expert in said laws, and has committed no crimes”, then when the former happens to kill someone illegally, proceed to average the two and use that to assert “see? owning guns is bad”.
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#806Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owning a gun makes it 2-3x more likely someone in your family will die by a gun. So it makes you less safe, not more. https://slate.com/technology/2015/01/good-guy-with-a-gun-myt... And it definitely makes it less safe for the rest of us in society.
If you have a gun in your house and are responsible with it, nobody will be at risk.
A couple months ago a friend of a friend was killed because a boy from school brought a gun from home to their house to show off and was playing with it. He thought it was empty. It wasn't. Now a girl is dead, a boy's life is ruined, and their families are devastated.
This happens all the time.
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were armed this would have been over a long time ago. China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes. Once you take up arms against the government that’s not a protest, that’s a civil war.
> China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes Thereby ruining the very thing they want to control and profit from. That's the thing that the " They'll just send in the army, LOL " folks don't seem to get: bombed out cities and a population under armed guard aren't very economically productive and, on top of that, you need to station military units there to keep a lid on things which is also…
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#808Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police shoot & kill unarmed people in the United States every. fucking. day. 2019: Jeremy Connolly, Wallace Wilder, Bobby Ray Moore, Raymond Lewis Williams, Channara Tom Pheap, Dennis Carolino, Chad Michael Breinholt, Riley Eugene Peay, Michael Tuck, James Crowe, Amari Malone, Michael Lopez, Jared R. Nelson, Schaston Theodore Lamarr Hodge, Mike Parsley, Uzzle Jerome, Rashad Cunningham, Jovany Mercado-Bedolla, Jamie F…
Your formatting makes it look like you are giving examples of unarmed people who are shot by the police, but your list doesn't reflect this. Here's what I found looking at the first three names: Jeremy Connolly: Armed with a knife. "The KBI says police shot Connolly after they found his 71-year-old grandmother, Linda Kromer, stabbed to death inside his home in the 2000 block of Harold Avenue. Officers heard noises in…
Police statements are predictably found to change under a thinnest level of scrutiny.
“Justifiable” use of force varies from department to department, police force to police force, state by state. It does not mean “the only or best option available” as any less controversial action would be equally as justified. US police, in aggregate, are known to escalate situations into something more dangerous or hostile than all of the options available. Of the 17,000 distinct autonomous paramilitary forced in the US, there is no way for a citizen to know what “threat matrix” they are currently being evaluated under, and if there even is a way to no longer be perceived as a threat without being eliminated, especially when the police are already operating under bad information that you are unaware of. Finding police actions “Justified” is a term used to resonate with the preconceptions of citizens, but actually means 17,000+ different things which no citizen knows the details of, only that particular department and scarred prosecutor.
Speaking of fear: Mayors, governors, prosecutors and juries are afraid of their police, just like they were afraid of the Mafia. This is not talked about. Equally dubious “I feared for my life” situations can happen to you and your family and law enforcement can rely on people like you believing the police statement verbatim.
Police are held to a high moral standard culturally, but are not trained in a way that reflects this. In a criminal investigation due to use of force, the person under scrutiny would be convicted of their statements changed so much. Police are able to operate under an abstraction of “justified” which is available at the discretion of the their supervisor, the DA, prosecutor, or a jury under randomly generated prosecutor instructions applicable in that one specific jurisdiction that nobody was aware of before that day in a private grand jury trial, before continuing to a less private jury trial with the same issues.
FBI has analysis of police in nationalist groups. There is no way for a citizen to differentiate any officer from another.
With this in mind, there is a lot less latitude to accept the deaths as stated. Cherry picking a few of the deaths and concluding so easily that its “justified” from description alone just neglects the inefficiency of the system. There are limitations in any of our abilities to judge the outcome. There are imperfections in our system of checks and balances.
Other developed countries have many people with knives and guns and the US is a total aberration in how these situations are handled.
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were armed this would have been over a long time ago. China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes. Once you take up arms against the government that’s not a protest, that’s a civil war.
The world would react quite brutally I imagine to another massacre from China - especially one on this potential scale.
Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing the behavior of people now to people 20-40 years ago seems dishonest. Many new technologies have prevailed since then, and cultures around consumption have rapidly shifted. We should consider instead the current consumption habits of both cohorts for an appropriate comparison.
I don't think the climate cares much about our technologies and cohorts. A ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2. Since you claimed I was arguing dishonestly, I withdraw from the discussion.
Didn't mean to make it sound so harsh, "dishonest" wasn't meant to be a reflection of your intention. I chose the wrong word.