Jump to content

.


Ember
 Share

Recommended Posts

And I dunno it looks like solving your police departments' issues with black people would do a lot more to preventing those periods of anarchy instead of simply arming everyone.

To be honest, those were easy to remember examples of long periods (more than 3 days) of rioting or lawlessness. Riots are also semi-frequent around major sporting events. See Hockey in Canada, Basketball in America, Football or Rugby in the rest of the world.

It's true, all of these events would be improved by guns.

FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I dunno it looks like solving your police departments' issues with black people would do a lot more to preventing those periods of anarchy instead of simply arming everyone.

To be honest, those were easy to remember examples of long periods (more than 3 days) of rioting or lawlessness. Riots are also semi-frequent around major sporting events. See Hockey in Canada, Basketball in America, Football or Rugby in the rest of the world.

It's true, all of these events would be improved by guns.

Funny you should say that, as most of those situations are dissipated with martial law - police or military action with guns.

 

Guess which stores didn't get smashed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that riot police and such only use guns in the most extreme circumstances.

 

As for the video, it didn't really look like they were actually near the rioters, and it was the sirens at the end that made them flee, but I could be misinterpreting. Here is a list of people killed in the 1992 LA riots. Of note, a person accidentally killed by a person he was helping defend his store, a person killed when his group (that was defending his neighbourhood) came across another group (also defending their neighbourhood) and mistook each other for aggressors, three people murdered for alleged looting and a bunch of other random shootings.

FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police are constantly using their guns, just not actually pointing or shooting at anyone. The fact that they have guns is enough to affect other people's behaviour.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police are constantly using their guns, just not actually pointing or shooting at anyone. The fact that they have guns is enough to affect other people's behaviour.

It is surely vastly debatable whether changes in people's crime behaviour are down to guns or not. Given pretty much every developed country on Earth has been able to drop its crime rates consistently for the past couple of decades, and some of those countries have armed police while others do not, and some of those countries have a right bear arms while others do not.

 

This line of argument is tantamount to suggesting that in countries where police aren't armed, looting is commonplace and rife. This is clearly not the case.

 

Another problem with this debate, as well as the hypothetical scenarios and the way everyone presents themselves as an expert in self-defence versus an armed criminal, is the simplification of problems which have deep and complicated socioeconomic and geopolitical factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't making an argument for or against gun control at all, just saying it wasn't true that the police very rarely use their guns. They're using them all the time. That's what makes them the police.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police are constantly using their guns, just not actually pointing or shooting at anyone. The fact that they have guns is enough to affect other people's behaviour.

It is surely vastly debatable whether changes in people's crime behaviour are down to guns or not. Given pretty much every developed country on Earth has been able to drop its crime rates consistently for the past couple of decades, and some of those countries have armed police while others do not, and some of those countries have a right bear arms while others do not.

 

This line of argument is tantamount to suggesting that in countries where police aren't armed, looting is commonplace and rife. This is clearly not the case.

I'd argue that in the case of rioting, people's behavior are only changed after a demonstration of extreme force, and that crowds are dissipated only after teargas, and less than lethal weapons are used.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't making an argument for or against gun control at all, just saying it wasn't true that the police very rarely use their guns. They're using them all the time. That's what makes them the police.

Except in countries where the police aren't armed. So... it doesn't make them the police at all, really.

 

I'd argue that in the case of rioting, people's behavior are only changed after a demonstration of extreme force, and that crowds are dissipated only after teargas, and less than lethal weapons are used.

I thought that Omar's point wasn't really directed at rioting, it was more aimed at the local policemen/women on foot patrol, generally making themselves a presence in the community. In other words, localised petty crime and single isolated cases which have no wider social or political background to them, or scenarios where demonstrations of extreme force are not needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I missed the context of your discussion. :oops:

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll be more specific and then we can drop this: the police draws their strength from the use of force, direct or indirect. They're constantly using that threat. I don't see how this is a controversial claim, and in any case I was responding to Lang's claim that they only used guns (provided they have some) in cases of emergency.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll be more specific and then we can drop this: the police draws their strength from the use of force, direct or indirect. They're constantly using that threat. I don't see how this is a controversial claim, and in any case I was responding to Lang's claim that they only used guns (provided they have some) in cases of emergency.

I guess we can start using pictues and drawings to avoid all the semantics...

 

1364441957250.png

  • Like 2
tumblr_m6mcuojTED1qlz68ro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, Omar's point would follow that if armed police are acting as a deterrent, it shouldn't matter that schools are armed. No one would go there armed because they know the police would (eventually) shoot them in a demonstration of extreme force.

 

Which way do you want this cake? You have to be contradicting somebody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one would go there armed.

Except they do, unless ofc...

1362863283683.jpg

 

Weren't you just talking about hypothetical situations that never happen? That sign sure looks menacing to a criminal that already made the decition of shooting people in the only place they'll oppose no resistance :roll: And then when guns are banned someone will drive through the front yard running over a bunch of kids, and they'll be made "hummer free zones" :roll:

tumblr_m6mcuojTED1qlz68ro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done, you spotted the contradiction. Anyone would think I thought they'd stop and turn round upon seeing that sign!

 

Strange though, that you use school massacres as a case for needing guns when it was the Dunblane Massacre which catalysed the ban of public ownership of firearms in my own country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginger, I have no idea what you're trying to say...

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginger, I have no idea what you're trying to say...

This... I'm guessing he's trying to play the "you don't get my argument" card, but all I see is some sort of non-sequitur... Get to the point, as much as I love these discussions, they become annoying when people start discussing semantics and meanings...

tumblr_m6mcuojTED1qlz68ro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is they're clearly not acting as a deterrent if shootings still happen in full knowledge that being shot in return is a given possibility. You can't argue that they are acting as a deterrent, and persist to argue that because they've failed to deter a gunman, you need them to defend yourself.

 

One of you is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is they're clearly not acting as a deterrent if shooting still happen in full knowledge that being shot in return is a given possibility. You can't argue that they are acting as a deterrent, and persist to argue that because they've failed to deter a gunman, you need them to defend yourself.

 

One of you is wrong.

Is that all? You just want to compare two people with similar thoughts by proving one of them wrong through semantics? And I'm yet to see your point, stop the meaning-talk, GET TO THE POINT!

tumblr_m6mcuojTED1qlz68ro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hardly semantics from where I'm standing. It's a fundamental flaw in one of your arguments, probably Omar's. But hey, I live in a country where public ownership of guns is essentially banned, and in a country where the homocide rate by guns is drastically lower. It's obviously a coincidence.

 

So I guess I'm basically the last person you want to tell you that gun ownership isn't needed to stop a gunman from killing you in some deranged off-the-cuff massacre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hardly semantics from where I'm standing. It's a fundamental flaw in one of your arguments, probably Omar's. But hey, I live in a country where public ownership of guns is essentially banned, and in a country where the homocide rate by guns is drastically lower. It's obviously a coincidence.

 

So I guess I'm basically the last person you want to tell you that gun ownership isn't needed to stop a gunman from killing you in some deranged off-the-cuff massacre.

I'm sorry what? You've branched this discussion so far that I'm not even sure if you're serious anymore... You keep trying to prove some argument wrong, yet refuse to say why the argument is wrong, you're basically saying "You're wrong but I can't tell you why!".

 

And I live on a country where pretty much everyone has a shotgun, yet only a handful of incidents with registered guns ever happened, if you look a bit back I already talked about how the idiocyncrasy of each country plays a role, you're basically trying to turn this whole thread into x vs y, when clearly we can get along, you sir, have some serious issues.

tumblr_m6mcuojTED1qlz68ro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've told you why it's wrong. If the police being armed was deterring people from committing an act severe violence using a firearm, you personally would have no need to own one to defend yourself from the bad guy who's being deterred.

 

Whatever. This thread is going the same way all the other fifteen billion gun threads in TIF's history have gone. It's a shame that this issue and the (thankfully, long-dead) religion threads show the worst in this community. You proved it with the "serious issues" comment.

 

I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've told you why it's wrong.

 

No you didn't

 

It's hardly semantics from where I'm standing. It's a fundamental flaw in one of your arguments, probably Omar's.

 

If the police being armed was deterring people from committing an act severe violence using a firearm, you personally would have no need to own one to defend yourself from the bad guy who's being deterred.

That's exactly why guns aren't allowed on buildings that already have police and/or a security system involving guns. Oh, and that's not a contradiction, I don't carry when entering a bank, hospital, police station, etc... I just leave the gun in my car or leave it with the security guard outside, hey, there's even this cool thing they do where they hold it for you...

 

I'm out.

Bye.

tumblr_m6mcuojTED1qlz68ro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginger, my point was that when the police is present, they are implicitly threatening the use of force on anyone who breaks the law (which isn't wrong in and of itself). Of course, the police are no deterrent when they're not there. I hope this clarifies things but this is as good a stab in the dark as I can make...

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stepping back a page to the discussion on unarmed policemen, up in rural northern Alaska there is an unarmed law enforcement group called VPSO, or Village Public Safety Officers. VPSOs are meant to be a symbol of law in places that may only be visited by an armed Alaska State Trooper every couple of weeks. They are also trained to fight fires, as well as be the first line of response in the case of a drowning, lost person, or someone in need of immediate emergency medical assistance. They don't have guns, but instead are "armed" with pepper spray and a baton. Since the program was initiated in the late 1970's two VPSOs have been killed (both shot), one just last month. Since then, there has been a bill introduced in the Alaska legislature to arm VPSOs with guns, and it has seen wide bipartisan support.

 

I just thought it might be something many of you may want to read up on, as I believe it's a fairly unique arrangement for the United States and other developed countries. Here's an article on the most recent event: http://www.adn.com/2013/03/20/2832951/vpso-shot-and-killed-in-bristol.html

Salamoniesunsetsig5.png

8,325th to 99 Firemaking 3/9/08 | 44,811th to 99 Cooking 7/16/08

4,968th to 99 Farming 10/9/09 | Runescaper August 2005-March 2010

Tip.it Mod Feb. 2008-Sep. 2008 | Tip.it Crew Sep. 2008-Nov. 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Ember changed the title to .

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.