webdiplomacy.net

For me the conclusion was taht Americans are never going to hold cops accountable, especially if they kill anyone deemed "disposable" which means that since cops never face any real consequence we are all at vastly greater risk because they kill anyone at will and get away with it.

Isn't this an argument for why we need to arm ourselves?

The answer to the lack of police accountability isn't to arm people to be able to shoot at cops, but rather to hold police accountable. Only an American would think that the answer to violence is more violence.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:04 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:40 pm

It is proof that it's easy enough to commit mass murder whether guns are available or not. The Canadian police do seem to have done a decent job, although if they'd shot him in the leg a couple of times you wouldn't have blamed them.

Would you support a massive increase in gun ownership in the UK, Octavious? Do you think it would make our country safer and reduce crime?

I imagine there'd be fewer burglaries. But no, I don't support a massive increase in gun ownership in the UK. Imposing change the public don't want isn't something I tend to get enthusiastic about.

Pretty much all of you are idiots. The 2nd amendment was created to stop a tyrannical government (which the USA currently has) from buttfucking the people. It "seems" like the population wants no guns because, guess what and no fucking surprise, the media is controlled by the bad guys. The NRA is not with the good guys, it's always giving away little by little of your freedoms, they're betraying you. And this is just my opinion but if you've heard any rumours about what the secret agencies like the CIA and NSA are capable of doing, they can easily kidnap, drug and mind control a person to do anything, including shooting their weapons at people, and they won't stop orchestrating these incidents until they have the people screaming to take their guns away, as some of you here are doing. There's a reason why most of their activities are veiled by the curtain of "national security". And I'm a Romanian, I shouldn't be telling Americans why it's so important to defend this right of theirs. If you want MOST (there will always be a crazy person out there) of these shootings to stop, you need to deal with these illegal agencies running your gov., which would eventually lead to a civil war because they're not going to give in decades of progress to a bunch of peasants, but that's a far lower price to pay than living in slavery, and your children and their children also. But I know my words will fall on deaf ears. Go ahead and give your guns away, the rest of the world doesn't care, we're already living at the mercy of these maniacs in power.

Trustworthy Ally ;) wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:07 pm

Pretty much all of you are idiots. The 2nd amendment was created to stop a tyrannical government (which the USA currently has) from buttfucking the people. It "seems" like the population wants no guns because, guess what and no fucking surprise, the media is controlled by the bad guys. The NRA is not with the good guys, it's always giving away little by little of your freedoms, they're betraying you. And this is just my opinion but if you've heard any rumours about what the secret agencies like the CIA and NSA are capable of doing, they can easily kidnap, drug and mind control a person to do anything, including shooting their weapons at people, and they won't stop orchestrating these incidents until they have the people screaming to take their guns away, as some of you here are doing. There's a reason why most of their activities are veiled by the curtain of "national security". And I'm a Romanian, I shouldn't be telling Americans why it's so important to defend this right of theirs. If you want MOST (there will always be a crazy person out there) of these shootings to stop, you need to deal with these illegal agencies running your gov., which would eventually lead to a civil war because they're not going to give in decades of progress to a bunch of peasants, but that's a far lower price to pay than living in slavery, and your children and their children also. But I know my words will fall on deaf ears. Go ahead and give your guns away, the rest of the world doesn't care, we're already living at the mercy of these maniacs in power.

Where did you buy your tinfoil hat...or did you make your own?

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:33 pm

Trustworthy Ally ;) wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:07 pm

Pretty much all of you are idiots. The 2nd amendment was created to stop a tyrannical government (which the USA currently has) from buttfucking the people. It "seems" like the population wants no guns because, guess what and no fucking surprise, the media is controlled by the bad guys. The NRA is not with the good guys, it's always giving away little by little of your freedoms, they're betraying you. And this is just my opinion but if you've heard any rumours about what the secret agencies like the CIA and NSA are capable of doing, they can easily kidnap, drug and mind control a person to do anything, including shooting their weapons at people, and they won't stop orchestrating these incidents until they have the people screaming to take their guns away, as some of you here are doing. There's a reason why most of their activities are veiled by the curtain of "national security". And I'm a Romanian, I shouldn't be telling Americans why it's so important to defend this right of theirs. If you want MOST (there will always be a crazy person out there) of these shootings to stop, you need to deal with these illegal agencies running your gov., which would eventually lead to a civil war because they're not going to give in decades of progress to a bunch of peasants, but that's a far lower price to pay than living in slavery, and your children and their children also. But I know my words will fall on deaf ears. Go ahead and give your guns away, the rest of the world doesn't care, we're already living at the mercy of these maniacs in power.

Where did you buy your tinfoil hat...or did you make your own?

Sure, mock me all you want. You're a conformist idiot.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:38 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:04 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:40 pm

It is proof that it's easy enough to commit mass murder whether guns are available or not. The Canadian police do seem to have done a decent job, although if they'd shot him in the leg a couple of times you wouldn't have blamed them.

Would you support a massive increase in gun ownership in the UK, Octavious? Do you think it would make our country safer and reduce crime?

I imagine there'd be fewer burglaries. But no, I don't support a massive increase in gun ownership in the UK. Imposing change the public don't want isn't something I tend to get enthusiastic about.

Given that defensive gun use is virtually unheard of in the US (a couple hundred recorded instances per year) I'm not sure why you'd think that. If it worked that way, the US wouldn't have a per capita burglary rate that is 50% higher than the UK's

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:40 pm

It is proof that it's easy enough to commit mass murder whether guns are available or not. The Canadian police do seem to have done a decent job, although if they'd shot him in the leg a couple of times you wouldn't have blamed them.

Can't drive a truck into a classroom and run over all the kids very well. Js

Durga wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:42 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:40 pm

It is proof that it's easy enough to commit mass murder whether guns are available or not. The Canadian police do seem to have done a decent job, although if they'd shot him in the leg a couple of times you wouldn't have blamed them.

Can't drive a truck into a classroom and run over all the kids very well. Js

No, but you could drive into a large crowd of kids on the streets outside every home time.

It's easier to protect against vehicle attacks though. Just stick bollards up along the side of the road.

One of these things has a function beyond murder

Telamor wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:33 pm

It's easier to protect against vehicle attacks though. Just stick bollards up along the side of the road.

It's been a long time since you've been to school, I take it? Home time creates a target rich environment for around a mile radius. That's a hell of a lot of bollards, and that's assuming it's even possible. Assuming you're willing to place obstacles in the way of pushchairs on all school routes, and the increased risk of traffic accidents as people avoid them. And all you achieve is to make one of many potential targets less attractive.

Durga wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:30 pm

One of these things has a function beyond murder

They clearly both do.

Of course, in a few years time when driverless cars become a reality, you could push for banning human controlled cars on the basis that they will no longer be necessary and can be used for mass murder as well as causing accidental deaths on a large scale. Same argument as the gun argument really.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:09 am

Assuming you're willing to place obstacles in the way of pushchairs on all school routes, and the increased risk of traffic accidents as people avoid them. And all you achieve is to make one of many potential targets less attractive.

I have yet to see a car that was narrower than a pushchiar/wheelchair and I'm not sure where You're envisioning these bollards going but drivers will not be in a position where they need to avoid them. Finally I would have to ask what cost/benefit analysis you did to make you question the value of safety for schools versus the cost of a few concrete bollards.

Durga wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:30 pm

One of these things has a function beyond murder

It stretches beyond just having a function other than murder. Cars are a necessity in the modern world. You need a car to get to the shops, to get to work, to get to the doctors etc. Guns are not a necessity for living life. Their function beyond killing people are all sporting/luxury uses.

Telamor wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:02 pm

I have yet to see a car that was narrower than a pushchiar/wheelchair and I'm not sure where You're envisioning these bollards going but drivers will not be in a position where they need to avoid them.

I think we have crossed wires somewhere. I'm picturing bollards protecting footpaths used by kids to get to school. What are you picturing?

As far cars being a necessity, I was specifically referencing the near future in which we will have computer controlled cars and human controlled cars will no longer be a necessity. But even today it should be observed that cars are not designed with public safety in mind, otherwise we wouldn't have cars capable of exceeding the maximum speed limit.

Car's are required to have seatbelts and get MOTs regularly which are features specifically designed for public safety. The bollards I'm envisioning would be on the footpaths not in the road.

Telamor wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:25 pm

The bollards I'm envisioning would be on the footpaths not in the road.

Indeed so. And because there are high concentrations of students on the footpaths around a school for a very large radius shortly before and after the school day, to have any meaningful protection you'll need a hell of a lot of bollards. And as the footpaths are often quite congested anyway, adding bollards will enhance the problem further, causing multiple instances where pedestrians walk into the road to avoid them.

Use a bit of common, mate. At a particularly nasty junction by my old school fencing was installed on the outside of the path for a few yards to herd students to a safer crossing point. What actually happened was that students switched to walking on the road side of the fence so they could continue to take the more direct path. Put in bollards, fences, or any kind of obstruction in front of kids and you will get kids doing stupid things to save a potential wasted second. It's human nature.

As for cars having MOTs, guns are also built to tough standards to avoid the operator injuring themselves, but that's not really the point. Answer me why cars are designed to significantly exceed the speed limit. Answer me why types of car, such as SUVs, that can cause significantly more damage than others in accidents are allowed to exist. Explain to me why intelligent braking technology isn't fitted to all new cars by law. The reality is that you could make a huge number of changes to cars today that would allow them to continue to be used for transport but reduce their risk of accidental death and potential to be used as weapons exponentially, but we don't. In the near future with driverless technology we will be able to remove the potential for human error and the ability to weaponise vehicles almost completely, but we won't. The issues are really very similar.

I'm not going to against making cars safer. But the two topics you are trying to compare are incompatible because cars are a necessity which guns are not.

Telamor wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:26 am

I'm not going to against making cars safer. But the two topics you are trying to compare are incompatible because cars are a necessity which guns are not.

With the greatest respect, you've not been listening. Once computer operated cars become mainstream, which could easily happen within a decade, then the debates over gun ownership and human operated car ownership become very much equivalent. And even today there are a multitude of similarities.