Page 34 of 75 FirstFirst ... 924252627282930313233343536373839404142434459 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 680 of 1491

Thread: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

  1. #661

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Unfortunately I've know people like this. They brandish their guns at the slightest provocation to feel tough. They're cowards, but will pick a fight or escalate an argument if they think they can't lose. A gun lets them be the aggressor they wish they could be and intimidate people they're otherwise scared of.
    Given that brandishing generally refers to the unlawful show of a firearm (typically to threaten or intimidate), I suspect that the above claims are false. As was discussed exhaustively earlier, being armed is not an act of aggression in and of itself and deadly force can only be used defensively.



  2. #662
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Given that brandishing generally refers to the unlawful show of a firearm (typically to threaten or intimidate), I suspect that the above claims are false. As was discussed exhaustively earlier, being armed is not an act of aggression in and of itself and deadly force can only be used defensively.
    Choosing to go armed is certainly an act of aggression. It is a deliberate and conscious escalation over going unarmed in any and every possible scenario. It is a signal of potential. This is a key point in the debate internationally over whether police should be armed or not. It changes the types and nature of interactions by broadening the ease of which deadly force can be brought into a confrontation - and thus the speed of escalation. The knowledge of the proximity of deadly force changes relationships entirely and raises the prospect - real or imagined - of coercion through the threat of violence.

    This aside, I do appreciate your perspective is valid, I just think it is void of sociology in it's describing of the place of deadly force in civil society.
    Last edited by antaeus; December 06, 2021 at 11:40 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  3. #663

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Choosing to go armed is certainly an act of aggression. It is a deliberate and conscious escalation over going unarmed in any and every possible scenario. It is a signal of potential. This is a key point in the debate internationally over whether police should be armed or not. It changes the types and nature of interactions by broadening the ease of which deadly force can be brought into a confrontation - and thus the speed of escalation. The knowledge of the proximity of deadly force changes relationships entirely and raises the prospect - real or imagined - of coercion through the threat of violence.

    This aside, I do appreciate your perspective is valid, I just think it is void of sociology in it's describing of the place of deadly force in civil society.
    A defensive show of force is not an act of aggression, it is a deterrent. It works precisely because would-be aggressors are warned with the prospect of "escalation". This is why officers/soldiers often display semi-automatic rifles at key locations like airports or govt. buildings or why individuals open carry in situations which have the potential to become volatile.



  4. #664
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    A defensive show of force is not an act of aggression, it is a deterrent. It works precisely because would-be aggressors are warned with the prospect of "escalation". This is why officers/soldiers often display semi-automatic rifles at key locations like airports or govt. buildings or why individuals open carry in situations which have the potential to become volatile.
    See that's where you and I differ. Within the context of civil society, I would consider a defensive show of force as exactly an act of aggression. But I am OK to agree to disagree.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  5. #665

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    why individuals open carry in situations which have the potential to become volatile.
    I've never heard of a good reason from these people who claim they need to open carry in churches, schools, or state legislator buildings. Do they expect their preacher is going to gun them down? Do they look at kindergartners with a suspicious eye? Do they think they might have to shoot their way out of a vote?

    It's more likely that they want to carry their guns wherever they go to turn the tables on the world that frightens them and make others fear them instead. Or to intimidate others with the implicit threat of death if they don't get their way.

  6. #666
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    I've never heard of a good reason from these people who claim they need to open carry in churches, schools, or state legislator buildings. Do they expect their preacher is going to gun them down? Do they look at kindergartners with a suspicious eye? Do they think they might have to shoot their way out of a vote?

    It's more likely that they want to carry their guns wherever they go to turn the tables on the world that frightens them and make others fear them instead. Or to intimidate others with the implicit threat of death if they don't get their way.
    I don't think that is entirely fair. Openly carrying of sidearms has become a cultural trait and an important (virtue) signal of inclusion within in a peer group. In this context, they're showing they're a part of a community. We may judge it as offensive to our peaceful sensibilities - in response they might view it as defiant towards your judgement,. What we see when we are shown images of politician's family photos, is a provocative display of defiance and unity. It may as well be a human peacock display.

    It has nothing to do with self defence or intimidation - that is an unintended affect of the defiance display.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  7. #667
    Mithradates's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,192

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    ...the debate internationally over whether police should be armed or not.
    ?
    There is a debate about this?

  8. #668
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    ?
    There is a debate about this?
    Of course. Not all police in the world carry firearms all of the time. And there is debate over whether it is necessary in countries where they do. One of the key points cited against police carrying sidearms is that it changes the nature of the trust relationship they have with their community, and in some circumstances can act as a provocation to violence.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  9. #669

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    I've never heard of a good reason from these people who claim they need to open carry in churches, schools, or state legislator buildings. Do they expect their preacher is going to gun them down? Do they look at kindergartners with a suspicious eye? Do they think they might have to shoot their way out of a vote?

    It's more likely that they want to carry their guns wherever they go to turn the tables on the world that frightens them and make others fear them instead. Or to intimidate others with the implicit threat of death if they don't get their way.
    Given that places of worship are often targeted by extremists or lunatics (Sutherland Springs, Charleston, West Freeway, Pittsburgh synagogue, Notre-Dame de Nice etc.), defensive shows of force are entirely appropriate. Openly carrying at protests is typically done as a symbolic reminder of the 2A or individual autonomy (see the armed black nationalists patrolling the Arbery trial).

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    See that's where you and I differ. Within the context of civil society, I would consider a defensive show of force as exactly an act of aggression. But I am OK to agree to disagree.
    Interpreting a defensive act as aggression is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I don't think that is entirely fair. Openly carrying of sidearms has become a cultural trait and an important (virtue) signal of inclusion within in a peer group. In this context, they're showing they're a part of a community. We may judge it as offensive to our peaceful sensibilities - in response they might view it as defiant towards your judgement,. What we see when we are shown images of politician's family photos, is a provocative display of defiance and unity. It may as well be a human peacock display.

    It has nothing to do with self defence or intimidation - that is an unintended affect of the defiance display.
    As above, the right to bear arms is fundamental in the US. It has everything to do with self-defense.



  10. #670
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Interpreting a defensive act as aggression is irrational.
    As above, the right to bear arms is fundamental in the US. It has everything to do with self-defense.
    I reframed what you label as defensive, as aggressive. We're now clearly talking in terms of subjective opinion.

    Either way, the right to bear arms might be fundamental. There is a lot of debate as to how that plays out in practice, and what limits should apply. Owning firearms to be able to participate in a militia's defence of the country from foreign or domestic attack isn't the same thing as openly wearing a Glock to a parent-teacher night. There is a lot of room for debate over exactly what the Second Amendment means here in practice, let alone expanding the debate to be about what it should mean. Even the states can't come to consensus on this, so we're unlikely to here.

    And there is a whole different debate to have, as I referenced, around the sociology of what maintaining an armed posture in civil society means for how people interact.
    Last edited by antaeus; December 07, 2021 at 06:04 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  11. #671

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I reframed what you label as defensive, as aggressive. We're now clearly talking in terms of subjective opinion.
    Not all opinions are equally valid. Interpreting a defensive action as aggressive is irrational, irrespective of whether such a determination is "subjective".

    Either way, the right to bear arms might be fundamental. There is a lot of debate as to how that plays out in practice, and what limits should apply. Owning firearms to be able to participate in a militia's defence of the country from foreign or domestic attack isn't the same thing as openly wearing a Glock to a parent-teacher night. There is a lot of room for debate over exactly what the Second Amendment means here in practice, let alone expanding the debate to be about what it should mean. Even the states can't come to consensus on this, so we're unlikely to here.

    And there is a whole different debate to have, as I referenced, around the sociology of what maintaining an armed posture in civil society means for how people interact.
    This isn't a discussion about how the 2A is interpreted in law or where the boundaries are. It's about the wilful conflation of those in lawful possession with extremists, murders, aggressors and provocateurs - hence the attempt to frame Massie as Taliban adjacent.



  12. #672

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Openly carrying at protests is typically done as a symbolic reminder of the 2A or individual autonomy (see the armed black nationalists patrolling the Arbery trial).
    Impossible. I have been reliably informed that groups of black men openly carrying arms would be gunned down on sight...

  13. #673
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Not all opinions are equally valid. Interpreting a defensive action as aggressive is irrational, irrespective of whether such a determination is "subjective".
    I'm certain that my opinion is equally valid to yours Cope. No need to make it personal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This isn't a discussion about how the 2A is interpreted in law or where the boundaries are. It's about the wilful conflation of those in lawful possession with extremists, murders, aggressors and provocateurs - hence the attempt to frame Massie as Taliban adjacent.
    Discussions evolve. Keep up or you'll be left behind.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  14. #674
    Mithradates's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,192

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Of course. Not all police in the world carry firearms all of the time. And there is debate over whether it is necessary in countries where they do. One of the key points cited against police carrying sidearms is that it changes the nature of the trust relationship they have with their community, and in some circumstances can act as a provocation to violence.
    Bhutan, Botswana, Cook Islands, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland), Vanuatu, U.S. Virgin Islands

    This is a list of quite unique countries (I had to google Niue) I see this mainly as an UK issue, maybe not for too long: "A survey conducted in Great Britain in 2004 found that 47% of citizens supported arming all police while 48% were opposed to the idea."

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    debate over whether it is necessary in countries where they do.
    Their argument is that unarmed policemen are less likely to shoot people. really?

    "We found little to support assumptions that routinely arming police officers creates, increases or improves community or officer safety.
    ?

    "The idea that 'police need guns' to do their job and for their own protection appears to have more to do with the fantasies of Hollywood scriptwriters than any real-world evidence," Dr Evans said.
    ???
    They should take a field trip to Mexico.


    I believe that law enforcement should be capable to enforce the law all the time in all circumstances, an unarmed police officer just cant do that.
    I really find it weird that people think that police officers should be disarmed.

  15. #675

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    I have to say, liberals scoffing at the idea that someone may need to defend his life in a country amid skyrocketing murder rates, is the most tone-deaf ivory tower pampered privileged take one could ever think off (maybe after liberals defending federal reserve and fiat monetary system).

  16. #676
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    ....
    I believe that law enforcement should be capable to enforce the law all the time in all circumstances, an unarmed police officer just cant do that.
    I really find it weird that people think that police officers should be disarmed.
    Look in the US where the community is baited by politicians and flooded with guns by gun sellers of course the police feel the need to be armed. Ditto Mexico which is awash with weapons too.

    There is another world out there, where the US constitution's second amendment has no authority, and the levels a=of violence are less extreme.

    I've never seen a drawn weapon on the street in my life. Not a knife, not a gun, nothing. The only gun owners I know are a collector (who likes to troll the cops by modifying his weapons to just this side of illegal-makes it hard for him to board a plan but his commitment is admirable) and some farmers. They don't carry, they don't need to. Of course we are a Soviet prison state...

    I think the gun lobby has the gun debate in the US in a headlock, its almost impossible for people to even imagine life without being armed.
    Last edited by Cyclops; December 07, 2021 at 02:44 PM.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #677

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Look in the US where the community is baited by politicians and flooded with guns by gun sellers of course the police feel the need to be armed. Ditto Mexico which is awash with weapons too.

    There is another world out there, where the US constitution's second amendment has no authority, and the levels a=of violence are less extreme.

    I've never seen a drawn weapon on the street in my life. Not a knife, not a gun, nothing. The only gun owners I know are a collector (who likes to troll the cops by modifying his weapons to just this side of illegal-makes it hard for him to board a plan but his commitment is admirable) and some farmers. They don't carry, they don't need to. Of course we are a Soviet prison state...

    I think the gun lobby has the gun debate in the US in a headlock, its almost impossible for people to even imagine life without being armed.
    Yet America doesn't have a real gun problem (homies capping each other over drug turfs aside, that is).
    Australia is actually a case study of why it s a bad idea to give up your guns, because when you do, government officials tend to forget their place and start acting like they are some kind of royalty and infringe more on citizens freedoms.
    So I think we can all agree that guns in America aren't the problem, the problem is lack of guns in citizens hands in other Western countries to form a deterrent against government using too much power. A society where state is afraid of its people tends to be better place to live. Perhaps once American government is replaced with more sane one, steps can be taken to force Commonwealth and EU to cool it with liberal maoisim and maybe even force them to adopt more 2A style laws to ensure that citizens can fight back when governments forget their place.

  18. #678
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    I believe that law enforcement should be capable to enforce the law all the time in all circumstances, an unarmed police officer just cant do that.
    I really find it weird that people think that police officers should be disarmed.
    Disarmed suggests that they were armed in the first place. But this wasn't the case in many countries. It's a societal threshold that once crossed, is difficult to uncross - as it becomes established as a cultural norm. As per the Peelian principles link I provided above... It changes the nature of the relationship between police and the society they serve - sometimes in ways that make a society more dangerous:

    "In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

    Arming police has always been seen in the UK as creating a power imbalance between state and citizens. In the US, this perception of imbalance has been avoided because citizens are armed as well - making society overall, more armed, and debatably, more dangerous.

    The support for arming police tends to follow the endless cycle of political "law and order" political campaign debates and isn't always evidence based, rather it is an emotional issue. Police in most countries where they go largely unarmed, tend to still have access to firearms - be they carried in car or available dependent on circumstances, they're just not carried when a lighter touch is necessary. Police when polled, tend to want access to firearms in response to the likelihood of terror attacks, rather than because they want them for daily duties, and even then their polling isn't overwhelming (trending 60-40 range) - significant numbers of police still prefer to go unarmed because of the benefit it has when interacting with vulnerable groups - even in the face of gun crime. Guns tend to be a crutch that is easily reached for in a situation - escalating, rather than looking to other means to de-escalate"

    The influence of Peelian Principles was clearly referenced last year in New Zealand. Where after the Christchurch mass shooting in 2019, Police trialled permanently armed units. The trial was eventually cancelled because as the New Zealand Police Commissioner stated: “[They] do not align with the style of policing that New Zealanders expect - We have listened carefully to that feedback and I have made the decision these teams will not be a part of our policing model in the future. How the public feels is important. We police with the consent of the public, and that is a privilege.”

    Speaking as someone who has lived long periods of my life in countries where police are armed, and others where they are unarmed, there is an noticeable difference in the trust with which police are treated by communities. It is noticeable even between culturally similar countries with similar crime rates such as Australia and New Zealand where there is even a lot of interaction and training shared between police forces across borders.

    It's a fascinating debate that might be better served by another thread. Although 'tough on crime' does tend to be a hallmark of conservative political campaigning/fear mongering, so I guess it is relevant. I also understand how it might be hard for those in countries where police are routinely armed to understand how not arming them might actually improve how they interact in society. But ultimately I think it is captured by the statement policing for society, not policing of society.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  19. #679

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Gotta love the "I lived most of my life in safe neighborhood, therefore its unfathomable for me that people may live in less safe environments, which is why I support gun control, since my sheltered upbringing making me uncomfortable about guns is more important to me then real actual safety of other people" take.
    I think in a lot of case most people that support gun control simply lack necessary adult life experience and even basic empathy to understand that not everyone lives in high-trust society, to people that live in areas where violence is commonplace this adolescent inability to understand why do people sometimes carry weapons just comes off as "let them eat cake".

  20. #680
    EmperorBatman999's Avatar I say, what, what?
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Why do you want to know?
    Posts
    11,891

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Playing Devil’s Advocate (I’m pro-gun), what would you say to people who bring up school shootings as a reason to ban guns? Of course, many of these shootings happen at well-off school districts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •