Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 371: 13 Years Old, Mature Enough for FOX and Gaetz

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'm against banning guns because the Right Wing guns nuts who want people like me and my friends literally dead will never give theirs up.

But you don't want cops to have guns to potentially stop those right wing gun nuts from killing people like you and your friends

Which, you have to understand, then makes me incredibly skeptical why you think you should have a gun, though, for the same reason

Why should I believe you'd always be a "good guy with a gun?"

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Try me.

Do you think it is a GOOD THING that the cop shot Ma'Khia Bryant to death? If so, why?

My really simple stance has been that a girl dying is not good enough to give a cop any credit for!

Of course it's not a "good thing".

If it's a blanket choice between the person stabbing or being stabbed surviving, then the answer should be obvious, and that's what I believe the scenario is, having watched the clip you admit you will not watch.

What would you be saying if the other girl died after getting stabbed?

Of course that's a pointless scenario to ask because if that had happened this would not have been a news story and we would not be talking about it.

I'm also not trying to give anyone "credit" . This isn't a hero cop, he just made the call that was sensible in this situation. That's it.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

But you don't want cops to have guns to potentially stop those right wing gun nuts from killing people like you and your friends

Most cops are on their side, dude.

StealThisSheen posted...

Which, you have to understand, then makes me incredibly skeptical why you think you should have a gun, though, for the same reason

This is a weird non-sequitur, there's literally no logical connection between "you don't think cops can protect you" and "wow I don't trust you with a gun".


---

I mean I also don't trust Tony with a gun because anybody who likes guns shouldn't be allowed to have one, but that's not relevant!

---

Tony if the cop didn't do anything and that girl did stab and murder the other girl, what would your reaction be? Would you be upset that it could have been avoided or just shrug and say oh well nothing could have been done

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This is a weird non-sequitur, there's literally no logical connection between "you don't think cops can protect you" and "wow I don't trust you with a gun".

You believe it's impossible for a cop to be a "good guy with a gun."

I'm taking it a step further and saying with that logic, I don't believe in "good guy with a gun" as a concept at all.

I, personally, feel there are situations where a cop is justified having one. Just as you feel there are situations that justify you having one.

But I also have literally no problem with just banning guns completely. Because, again, I don't believe in your "Well I will always only use it rightfully" concept.

So let's get rid of all guns.

---

We get it, you're afraid of loud noises.

My guns sit, unloaded, in a double-locked (pin and padlocked) case in the top shelf of my closet, and I haven't touched them in basically a year, to clean them, let alone shoot them (which has been like...6 years).

I'm not jerking myself off with them like some of these psychos, I just think in a world with psychos with guns, having one safely tucked away can't hurt.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

We get it, you're afraid of loud noises.

My guns sit, unloaded, in a double-locked (pin and padlocked) case in the top shelf of my closet, and I haven't touched them in basically a year, to clean them, let alone shoot them (which has been like...6 years).

I'm not jerking myself off with them like some of these psychos, I just think in a world with psychos with guns, having one safely tucked away can't hurt.

How do you know the psycho attacking you is actually trying to kill you? There are a million other outcomes there.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

You believe it's impossible for a cop to be a "good guy with a gun."

Correct.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm taking it a step further and saying with that logic, I don't believe in "good guy with a gun" as a concept at all.

Also correct. I'm not interested or supportive of anyone patrolling the area with guns, these are literally for defensive, on my property, purposes.

StealThisSheen posted...

But I also have literally no problem with just banning guns completely. Because, again, I don't believe in your "Well I will always only use it rightfully" concept.

So let's get rid of all guns.

If I thought it was actually possible, I would.

But I don't know how you can see January 6th and think those same people that terrified you (who took selfies WITH cops until a certain point btw) would peacefully hand over their weapons (and also, they're not alone). You either haven't considered it or you're wildly naive.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

We get it, you're afraid of loud noises.

My guns sit, unloaded, in a double-locked (pin and padlocked) case in the top shelf of my closet, and I haven't touched them in basically a year, to clean them, let alone shoot them (which has been like...6 years).

I'm not jerking myself off with them like some of these psychos, I just think in a world with psychos with guns, having one safely tucked away can't hurt.

Good for you. Why should I believe that will always be the case? For instance, you clearly think less of these "psychos," so you're already kinda being the hammer among nails, here.

I have no reason to believe you'll always be a good guy with a gun. Again, I don't truly believe that concept exists. So I don't believe anybody should have them, period.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I can't even begin to explain how disappointing this post is.

Yes.

Because she was furious.

She had adrenaline pumping.

She had a knife.

She was actively lunging with the knife towards the person she was holding.

How are you this dense? Jesus Christ. Like you went from "Guys, she wasn't even attacking her with the knife" to "well obviously even if she was attacking her with the knife, she wasn't going to kill her."

You're moving goal posts to justify your completely uninformed position on this situation and then talking down to people about it until it's to the point you're actively denying reality now.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If it's a blanket choice between the person stabbing or being stabbed surviving, then the answer should be obvious, and that's what I believe the scenario is, having watched the clip you admit you will not watch.

Why do you feel qualified to make this judgement based on a single incident and no other context? This is a whole-ass philosophical debate on the relative value of human life. You're saying her life is worth less.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

What would you be saying if the other girl died after getting stabbed?

Like I said, also a tragedy.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

This isn't a hero cop, he just made the call that was sensible

Then we basically agree, I'm just pointing out there's no reason to accept this as a normal or ideal response.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

So I don't believe anybody should have them, period.

Dude I hate that you make me constantly repeat myself.

What do you think happens if they ban all guns? Walk through it logically. Remember that 100 million Republicans believe the 2nd Amendment is literally a God-given right to own guns.

President AOC signs the bill, bam, all guns are banned, including for cops.

What happens next?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dude I hate that you make me constantly repeat myself.

What do you think happens if they ban all guns? Walk through it logically. Remember that 100 million Republicans believe the 2nd Amendment is literally a God-given right to own guns.

President AOC signs the bill, bam, all guns are banned, including for cops.

What happens next?

Then only bad guys have guns, I get your argument.

You haven't answered why I should trust you aren't one of those bad guys given your opposition?

I've already made my stance clear: I believe there are cases, such as saving a life, where using a gun is valid.

However, if we're going to ban guns, I am fully against just picking and choosing who to ban them for. It should be a blanket ban, because I have literally zero reason to trust you over anybody else, cop or otherwise.

---

I don't want to say I'm fully siding with the "ban all guns" argument but Australia did ban guns in fairly recent history and that didn't turn into a lawless hellhole where bad guys with guns were killing everyone.

Not saying it is a perfect 1:1 comparison and I agree with Tony that this would be incredibly difficult to enforce but it isn't as if this never happened before.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

However, if we're going to ban guns, I am fully against just picking and choosing who to ban them for. It should be a blanket ban, because I have literally zero reason to trust you over anybody else, cop or otherwise.

Cops arent a class of people, they are a job, this is not a valid if/or


---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Why do you feel qualified to make this judgement based on a single incident and no other context? This is a whole-ass philosophical debate on the relative value of human life. You're saying her life is worth less.

Like I said, also a tragedy.

Then we basically agree, I'm just pointing out there's no reason to accept this as a normal or ideal response.

Whether her life was worth less or more is irrelevant, one person was about to kill another person, and somebody who's job it is to stop people from dying made the call. That doesn't make him a hero, it makes him at minimum a borderline competent officer. In no world is he a hero. Hero cops don't exist.

I'm not saying this is an ideal response in general, but it was the response that made sense for the situation.

So yes I don't think we actually disagree a out the cop himself, we're just disagreeing about the call. Honestly I think the fact that nobody has a better answer to what could have been done in this a act specific situation says it all.

And not directed at you, but no, "why didn't he use his Barry Allen powers and hit her in the arm with a baton" isn't gonna fly.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I don't want to say I'm fully siding with the "ban all guns" argument but Australia did ban guns in fairly recent history and that didn't turn into a lawless hellhole where bad guys with guns were killing everyone.

Not saying it is a perfect 1:1 comparison and I agree with Tony that this would be incredibly difficult to enforce but it isn't as if this never happened before.

Not to trying to gotcha after you thoroughly owned me with post 308, but gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than before the ban.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

President AOC signs the bill, bam, all guns are banned, including for cops.

What happens next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu3bq1dqzOM
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Australia did ban guns in fairly recent history and that didn't turn into a lawless hellhole where bad guys with guns were killing everyone.

OK but this probably was a mistake because those guns were for protecting themselves from the wildlife, not from people.

But I guess all the kangaroos are dead from the fires now.

---

Well yeah but it was a voluntary turn in. I thought your argument was essentially "if only good guys turn in guns then only bad guys have guns are scary stuff happens". To my knowledge, Australia isn't suffering from an epidemic of gun violence even though the "good guys" apparently turned in their weapons.

And thank you for at least acknowledging my thorough owning of your logic I appreciate that at least.


---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Australia did ban guns in fairly recent history and that didn't turn into a lawless hellhole

I thought it already was one.

---

I mean snarkiness aside, your argument seems to be "the penalty for holding a knife within striking distance isn't a death sentence", to which I would respond "is someone breaking into your house with a gun but not actively pointing it at you a death sentence or not".

I'm not sure why you think you need your gun.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Cops arent a class of people, they are a job, this is not a valid if/or

Nope, it's incredibly valid from my point of view. I have no proof you won't misuse a gun. Why should I want you to have one? Why should I trust you to have one? Because you haven't killed anybody yet? There are plenty of cops that haven't killed anybody.

Hell, to me, with the way you so fervently want cops to have no guns and yet also so fervently don't want ANY gun bans, period, for yourself, I'd be very damn nervous around you with a gun! This could look like a million different things to me, many of them bad!

If people are free to own guns and shoot people, I believe cops should have guns as well. This is not to say I don't think there needs to be dramatic reform, but I don't personally believe in banning them for cops and nobody else. I do, however, believe in a total ban, even if it's basically fantasy land, because, again, I don't truly trust anybody with a gun, even if I acknowledge there are situations I feel they're justified in.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I thought it already was one.

Can't become a lawless hellhole if wild gangs of kangaroos already control all of the major infrastructure.

*pointing at head meme*

---

IDK, I feel like I hold a couple of opinions concurrently.

I think the only police who should carry firearms are a specialized and highly trained unit - think like a SWAT team - that is generally only mobilized for situations that honestly call for it, like an active shooter situation or something.

No situation that ends in a fatality like this is an "ideal" outcome but given the facts presented here I don't think I could say the officer acted grossly irresponsibly as is so often the case on an institutional level.

While I wouldn't have a problem with a general ban on guns, I think that ship sailed a long time ago here. There's too many guns here and gun culture is too ingrained. That said, I do think there should be very strict regulations on them. Background checks and the like are the easy, no-brainer stuff that we somehow don't have because America. I'm talking extensive training and the like.

Being a realist even that's probably a no-go politically, but just talking hypothetically you 100% introduce along with this a buyback program to encourage those who don't want to go through all that to relinquish their guns. You do not just blanket ban them and leave it at that. You need to provide an incentive for people to turn them over if they're not willing to go through the necessary training. Unfortunately, the gun nuts won't comply and I'm sure the GOP and NRA would encourage more reasonable people to not do so either but this is how you approach it and I suspect it'd be a fairly successful program.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Can't become a lawless hellhole if wild gangs of kangaroos already control all of the major infrastructure.

*pointing at head meme*

If this thing charged me and I had a gun I would absolutely unload.



I will never forgive American media for making people think Kangaroos were cute.

---

that's not a kangaroo that's a pillar man you've already lost

---

I'm okay with Tony having his guns if, before he shoots, he declares to everyone around that he is in fact trying to kill the person he is about to shoot.

---

Just so were clear. Im not against blanket all gun ban because Republicans will secretly have them and they might break into my house.

Im against blanket all gun bans because those people will start a Civil War.

If you were scared by the January 6th insurrection that happened because of a peaceful election loss, consider the insurrection if a Democrat says their God-Given Right is forfeit.

And I fully get the logic of well I dont trust ANYONE to have them, and that includes you, but I dont think that tracks with wanting beat cops to carry guns, considering theyre the group of people most likely to kill any one of us with a gun.


---

xp1337 posted...

IDK, I feel like I hold a couple of opinions concurrently.

I think the only police who should carry firearms are a specialized and highly trained unit - think like a SWAT team - that is generally only mobilized for situations that honestly call for it, like an active shooter situation or something.

No situation that ends in a fatality like this is an "ideal" outcome but given the facts presented here I don't think I could say the officer acted grossly irresponsibly as is so often the case on an institutional level.

While I wouldn't have a problem with a general ban on guns, I think that ship sailed a long time ago here. There's too many guns here and gun culture is too ingrained. That said, I do think there should be very strict regulations on them. Background checks and the like are the easy, no-brainer stuff that we somehow don't have because America. I'm talking extensive training and the like.

Being a realist even that's probably a no-go politically, but just talking hypothetically you 100% introduce along with this a buyback program to encourage those who don't want to go through all that to relinquish their guns. You do not just blanket ban them and leave it at that. You need to provide an incentive for people to turn them over if they're not willing to go through the necessary training. Unfortunately, the gun nuts won't comply and I'm sure the GOP and NRA would encourage more reasonable people to not do so either but this is how you approach it and I suspect it'd be a fairly successful program.

I think this is where I'm mostly at too. I know it sounds defeatist, but I have no hope of a blanket ban working. Not just logistically, but I mean from a legal perspective. How do you have a general ban on guns with fifty democratic votes in the senate (one of which is Manchin) and a conservative supreme court?

I think buy back/improved gun laws are probably our best hope at the moment.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Whether her life was worth less or more is irrelevant, one person was about to kill another person, and somebody who's job it is to stop people from dying made the call.

Well this gets at the root of something else - I don't think it's either the intended purpose of cops to stop people from dying, and they certainly don't do a very good job of it! Even if that's your perspective here, they stopped one death by causing another? That's a net zero. People should definitely stop using the framework that cops are supposed to prevent death because that's not how it works.

Taking a step back from the argument, this started because multiple people didn't know how to feel about it, even though it was legally justified, even though they weren't really sure what else the cop could do. And I'm just pointing out you can still blame the cop for killing someone even if you're conflicted about it! It's very easy!

You don't have to take the cop's side. You don't have to worry that people's legitimate anger at someone's death will somehow delegitimize even more heinous deaths. You don't have to go through a video and convince yourself it had to go down like this. You can just be mad a cop killed someone and want things to be better in the future. Instead of accepting this as the only option ask WHY it was the only option.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If this thing charged me and I had a gun I would absolutely unload.



I will never forgive American media for making people think Kangaroos were cute.

Delete this before you get arrested for a credible threat against the president of Australia.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

And I'm just pointing out you can still blame the cop for killing someone even if you're conflicted about it!

But I don't blame the cop in this regard

You seem to be under the impression that people here, in THIS topic of all places, are too nervous to blame a cop for killing someone on the job, and that's the reason why there's pushback. I've sided against the police in 99% of the examples posted here and yes, this is the 1% where I think it's fine

Also get out of here with that 'net zero lives' BS, if someone tried to stab me and another person neglected to stop them than I would be pretty pissed as I bled to death from a knife wound as they tapdanced on the moral high ground


---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Delete this before you get arrested for a credible threat against the president of Australia.

No that's this one.

https://youtu.be/RpXxWQeho3M

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Well this gets at the root of something else - I don't think it's either the intended purpose of cops to stop people from dying, and they certainly don't do a very good job of it! Even if that's your perspective here, they stopped one death by causing another? That's a net zero. People should definitely stop using the framework that cops are supposed to prevent death because that's not how it works.

...Cops absolutely should prevent death. What.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Also get out of here with that 'net zero lives' BS, if someone tried to stab me and another person neglected to stop them than I would be pretty pissed as I bled to death from a knife wound as they tapdanced on the moral high ground

You're making a lot of assumptions here. What if I have emergency medical training or a partner or something for some nonspecific reason and can multitask here.

I'll drop the snark and be honest though - don't think I would shoot some rando stabbing another rando if I had a gun!

---

StealThisSheen posted...

...Cops absolutely should prevent death. What.

Do you think the primary job of cops is to go around stopping in-progress murders

---

Also, on the "net lives" thing, here's a question. If somebody's attempting a mass shooting in a crowd of 50 people and cops kill them very early into it, saving, say, 45 lives, are you going to raise your hand and go "well actually they only saved 44 lives because you have to subtract for the killer"

---

StealThisSheen posted...

...Cops absolutely should prevent death. What.

You need an entire new system then since that's not their job description according to the courts.


---

StealThisSheen posted...

Also, on the "net lives" thing, here's a question. If somebody's attempting a mass shooting in a crowd of 50 people and cops kill them very early into it, saving, say, 45 lives, are you going to raise your hand and go "well actually they only saved 44 lives because you have to subtract for the killer"

This is a loaded question but obviously less victims is better and I would include taking the shooter in alive in that.

---

FFDragon posted...

You need an entire new system then since that's not their job description according to the courts.

I don't disagree with this at all.

I'm not disagreeing it's not their legal duty according to the courts, but I disagree with the notion that we shouldn't want them to.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This is a loaded question but obviously less victims is better and I would include taking the shooter in alive in that.

So then if they had a choice between shooting the shooter to end the mass shooting early, or taking time to move in and not use their guns at the risk of more people being shot, you'd want them to do the latter?

---

SEP, why is every situation involving death a binary choice between worst case scenarios for you?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This is a loaded question but obviously less victims is better and I would include taking the shooter in alive in that.

If we're talking an active shooter in a crowded area then the time of difference between shooting him and restraining him could result in 3 or 4 deaths in between if not more, maybe even dozens depending on the gun. Curious how many additional deaths will be required before shooting him becomes the right call.

I really don't think you wanna math this out.

---

I feel like there should definitely be more cops getting murdered weekly than normal people getting murdered weekly by cops to justify their trigger-happy reactions

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

SEP, why is every situation involving death a binary choice between worst case scenarios for you?

I think every response I give you for awhile is just going to be "I want to take yo' guns"

Tony

I want to take yo' guns

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If we're talking an active shooter in a crowded area then the time of difference between shooting him and restraining him could result in 3 or 4 deaths in between if not more, maybe even dozens depending on the gun. Curious how many additional deaths will be required before shooting him becomes the right call.

I really don't think you wanna math this out.

Source: Your ass.

Edit: For the record, Im not saying more people cant die if cops dont shoot the guy, but you are literally just making up random numbers to make a point.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't disagree with this at all.

I'm not disagreeing it's not their legal duty according to the courts, but I disagree with the notion that we shouldn't want them to.

Let me clarify: when I say "cops" I mean the police system that we have. It's not that death shouldn't be prevented or that we shouldn't have an organization to do that, but the current police are very far away from that. As FFD says, that's a new system. So I guess this is a semantic argument.

StealThisSheen posted...

So then if they had a choice between shooting the shooter to end the mass shooting early, or taking time to move in and not use their guns at the risk of more people being shot, you'd want them to do the latter?

Ok this is literally the trolley problem. That's unfair. The aim here should be to reduce harm as much as possible while also inflicting the least amount of harm.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Source: Your ass.

You must have a source that says otherwise that you'd like to share

p.s. I want to take yo' guns

---