The Silence Here Is Deafening

[sparks]

That has nothing to do with shit my friend. And if you wish to define my attitude here as being combative, I'll respect your right to your opinion but I do not agree (that I'm being combative).

My point is to the police protecting the community as you said: I disagree with this strongly. If the police are protecting the community as you say, then they are protecting the majority which may or may not be tyrannical. Further, if anyone needs protection from either shitty individuals or a shitty majority, it'd most likely be individuals.

[Grammatron]

The duty of police officers to protect the community and what it means is as definable as pornography.

[Doctor X]

The duty of police officers to protect the community and what it means is as definable as pornography,

Actually, and seriously, no. I refer to Ben's post here.

This is sort of settled law, much to everyone's, including My Humble – Yet MagNIfIcent – Self's surprise.

– J.D.

[Grammatron]

The duty of police officers to protect the community and what it means is as definable as pornography,

Actually, and seriously, no. I refer to Ben's post here.

This is sort of settled law, much to everyone's, including My Humble – Yet MagNIfIcent – Self's surprise.

– J.D.

To me those court arguments are with respect to an individual rather than community.

I see it as: The police never have a duty to protect 'you' but they still exist to benefit the community. If the police start working for the benefit of some local money or organized crime then state or feds can get involved. And they get involved because the police are not doing their job, however undefinable it may be.

[Doctor X]

To me those court arguments are with respect to an individual rather than community.

They may be, and I do not necessarily disagree with you, but neither of our views matter in the face of what the laws says – or will say. I am unaware of a community suing police for failure to protect the community. Naturally, communities hire their police so, in effect, they do not have to sue them. Then we get into the contracts, blah, blah, blah.

And they get involved because the police are not doing their job, however undefinable it may be.

To be strict, no. They are getting involved because the members of the police are committing a crime.

– J.D.

[The Atheist]

The police have a duty to protect people living in the city, but they do not have a duty to protect an individual.

If I thought you had even half a clue I'd think you might read that one day and see how utterly stupid it is.

But there's no chance of that happening.

Not even the clear and obvious fact that the people living in the city are all individuals would encourage you to ditch your moronic beliefs for a second.

No wonder your country is so fucked.
_____________________

And in related news: Uvalde was all of 14 days ago.

Since then there have been 20 multiple shootings, with a total of 18 dead and 88 injured.

[Doctor X]

Sometimes silence is refreshing.

– J.D.

[Grammatron]

If I thought ...

Would be a good start.

[sparks]

How fucking clever of you grammy: Bitch to high hell about a tactic the opposition uses and then use it yourself.

And if you can't understand that then there's just no fucking point, is there?

[Doctor X]

Calm yourself, sparks, the only crimes for which Gram is guilty is thinking he can have a rational conversation with a Cunt, his support for some minor team from Minneapolis, and his persistent failure to explain his whereabouts on a cold February night.

Calm.

Then restate and defend your position rationally. As with most things, solutions are never simple.

Even:



At least no fireflies were involved.

– J.D.

[ed]

If I may comment.

The police have no obligation to protect an individual. This has been affirmed quite specifically through two SCOTUS cases and any idiot can see that for themselves. A more eloquent point can be made through the use of the sniff test.

In this most litigious of litigious societies, if it were true that the police had any obligation to protect individuals, property or society at large, one would expect a raft of successful lawsuits wherein aggrieved parties sued local police for failure to perform. There are no such cases. That means, very simply, that there is no obligation.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
https://mises.org/power-market/police-h ... -yet-again

I may have told this story but it is somehow apropos. We were at a gun show in Lakeland, I think, when a police Sargent came to our table and said to my wife "you know, my patrol area is 45 minutes on a side. If you are in trouble, you cannot depend on me". Rather sobering.

https://i.imgur.com/KN7SJv1.jpg

People believe, either overtly or subconsciously, in Whig History. That is that human Humanistic progress is monotonic and positive. It isn't. Given patterns of birthrates and the failure of courage of western societies future generations might well reflect in amazement at how, at one time, women were not slapped down for being uppity and that homosexuals were referred to as being "gay" and were allowed to live. We can see the enormities that appear to be acceptable in places like Australia and Shanghai. There is no conspiracy, it is just that now those that crave power see what they can get away with. With the support of Hitler's Willing Executioners.

What we take for granted occurred in less than an eyeblink and could evaporate just as quickly. And if you disagree, you are a Whig Historian.

As far as the horror in Texas goes, I have heard little that is productive. AR's are not going away. In fact a policeman friend suggested that turning them in would be suicidal because then "they'd know who to come for". The resident idiot doubling down and arm waving about "9mm assault bullets" is not helpful. Nor is that reprehensible Beto person attempting to give lessons in ballistics.

In fact. Biden and the democrats are, in my view, responsible for escalating violence in this county. They are responsible because they did not condemn other violence. They did not point out that violence is bad. They equated it with speech for chrissakes. They fucking normalized it so that a deranged fool like the kid in Texas, could feel, in his own head, perfectly justified. He, doubtless, had his own George Floyd. It is not all on them but, in all honesty, could anyone point to one person on the left that did not try to score points while swaths of cities were burning?

What did Reynald de Chatillon say to the King in Kingdom of Heaven?

Guy de Lusignan : Give me a war.
Reynald : That is what I do.

Indeed.

[robinson]

The insane left supports street violence and arson

And at the same time wants to get rid of guns

Why is that insanity? If you are sane you already know

The person who can’t answer, or considers the thought offensive

That person is insane, and will never know the answer

Because they are insane

[Grammatron]

How fucking clever of you grammy: Bitch to high hell about a tactic the opposition uses and then use it yourself.

And if you can't understand that then there's just no fucking point, is there?

I am willing to engage in a conversation. Someone who wants to troll gets reciprocity in kind.

[sparks]

How fucking clever of you grammy: Bitch to high hell about a tactic the opposition uses and then use it yourself.

And if you can't understand that then there's just no fucking point, is there?

I am willing to engage in a conversation. Someone who wants to troll gets reciprocity in kind.

I'm really not here to troll, regardless of what you believe. But there is an appropriate fix for this.

Cornfield.

You're in it.

See ya!

[Grammatron]

The state of discourse.

[Ben Trovado]

I may have told this story but it is somehow apropos. We were at a gun show in Lakeland, I think, when a police Sargent came to our table and said to my wife "you know, my patrol area is 45 minutes on a side. If you are in trouble, you cannot depend on me". Rather sobering.

My brother got crosswise when 18-19 by a convicted felon with a history of violent assault. My brother apparently dated the wrong girl or spoke to her or just looked her direction too long. The felon made death threats, and very specific ones. He also ran with some violent friends with checkered histories.

My Dad and brother went to the police, who advised my brother that they could do nothing until he was actually attacked, and to buy a shotgun.

[Hotarubi]

How fucking clever of you grammy: Bitch to high hell about a tactic the opposition uses and then use it yourself.

And if you can't understand that then there's just no fucking point, is there?

I am willing to engage in a conversation.

Sometimes you're not. As our earlier exchange shows.

[Grammatron]

How fucking clever of you grammy: Bitch to high hell about a tactic the opposition uses and then use it yourself.

And if you can't understand that then there's just no fucking point, is there?

I am willing to engage in a conversation.

Sometimes you're not. As our earlier exchange shows.

It's possible. I'm not perfect nor claim to be. I don't think I was dismissive with my statements, I do think countries can't be compared like that. Just comparing USA against two other, neighboring North American nations shows wildly different attitudes toward and issues with guns.

[The Atheist]

In this most litigious of litigious societies, if it were true that the police had any obligation to protect individuals, property or society at large, one would expect a raft of successful lawsuits wherein aggrieved parties sued local police for failure to perform. There are no such cases. That means, very simply, that there is no obligation.

Gotta admit I'm amused at the intransigence of idiots who can't understand the difference between general protection and a specific example, even when I've given you the clear explanation of what the difference is.

Want to take a small wager on this one?

There's no doubt the police will be sued, and SCOTUS will decline to hear an appeal when it reaches that level.

I'll take bets up to $US1000 that the cops will be successfully sued for failing to act at Uvalde.

[The Atheist]

In fact. Biden and the democrats are, in my view, responsible for escalating violence in this county.

I've quoted that sentence separately because it shows how idiotic and deep the divisions in America really are.

Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read, but suitable for your location and politics.

[ed]

In this most litigious of litigious societies, if it were true that the police had any obligation to protect individuals, property or society at large, one would expect a raft of successful lawsuits wherein aggrieved parties sued local police for failure to perform. There are no such cases. That means, very simply, that there is no obligation.

Gotta admit I'm amused at the intransigence of idiots who can't understand the difference between general protection and a specific example, even when I've given you the clear explanation of what the difference is.

Want to take a small wager on this one?

There's no doubt the police will be sued, and SCOTUS will decline to hear an appeal when it reaches that level.

I'll take bets up to $US1000 that the cops will be successfully sued for failing to act at Uvalde.

The simple fact is that anyone can be sued. The question is whether the suit will prevail. Fact is that there are no suits because they are thrown out before the first court appearance.

There will be no suits. It won't be "declined" by SCOTUS because it will not be litigated in the first place. There is no basis for a suit. That train left the station.

[ed]

In fact. Biden and the democrats are, in my view, responsible for escalating violence in this county.

I've quoted that sentence separately because it shows how idiotic and deep the divisions in America really are.

Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read, but suitable for your location and politics.

You are in NZ so that is saying something, I am impressed.

This is, for those that have an interest other than trolling, sort of an example of basic psychology. I think we have seen other examples, here and elsewhere. But, undeniably, the democrats have turned a blind eye towards violence hat is "good". That has an impact. It does conjure up Milgram actually. Recall the dehumanization campaign conducted by the Nazis against unacceptable minorities. The parallels are stark.

It's just a technique is all. It is creating a group consciences that defines the acceptable.

[The Atheist]

Failure to put your money where your mouth is noted.

I confess to owing you an apology, Ed.

I thought you were just an old bloke who hadn't woken up to what year it was, when in fact you're every bit as much a revolting, blind, far-right moron as the other ones in this echo chamber.

And I love the projection - it's a new tactic for Republitards, no doubt one of you thought it was a good idea, having finally reached a mental age of 4.

[ed]

An insult bereft of reasoning. One thing is for certain, you do not disappoint.

[shemp]

The police have a duty to protect people living in the city, but they do not have a duty to protect an individual.

And in related news: Uvalde was all of 14 days ago.

Since then there have been 20 multiple shootings, with a total of 18 dead and 88 injured.

It's been slow. It'll pick up when summer comes.

[Doctor X]

And a Cunt contributes nothing.

– J.D.

[Hotarubi]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-61655327.amp

[Doctor X]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-61655327.amp

Demands a Recount it Does!

Wibble!

– J.D.

[solely]

What happens if you smoke it?

[Ben Trovado]

So specifically, what common sense laws are we proposing that will then be ignored like our current ones?

A ban on "assault weapons" like the one we had for 10 years with absolutely no effect on anything?

How about all those California laws? L.A. DA Gascon recently spoke about the need for more, new, sensible gun laws. CA already has some of the toughest gun laws - but they remain unenforced, or at least enforced rarely and wildly inconsistently.
Just this week his office gave a felon/gang member w/ a prior felony strike [FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM] a plea deal for probation on his gun charge instead of prison. He promptly ambushed and killed killed 2 police officers. Are any of these new laws going to be as well-enforced as that one? Or the ones mandating higher sentences for handgun use in a crime, but that are ignored because it impacts the wrong demographics or looks bad for a DA's statistics?

Or the Chicago DA's decision a short time ago to forego charging ANYONE in a gang shootout with multiple shooters because it was "mutual combat" - never mind that no one else in the neighborhood agreed to be casualties from the sidelines, or that we generally frown on violent "self help" to end disputes, regardless.

When Hunter Biden's felony misrepresentations on his gun application came to the news (well, SOME places covered it), we found that he was never going to be prosecuted for the purported felony, and further - the vast majority of people who lie on those forms are not prosecuted, either. Last week a video came out of him, seemingly drunk and with a handgun - it was not the same one that he lied to buy. He, ineligible to have a gun, was holding a second one with his finger on the damn trigger. No one even seemed to care. I have not seen anyone pointing out that it was not even the same gun.

No one who has failed to either notify or update the background check database after a shooting has ever been punished, even after it is discovered that past crimes or restraining orders could have prevented a purchase, but "someone" made a mistake. Hell, they don't even bother to pretend to investigate.

So - if you are arguing that we can genuinely, truly confiscate *all* weapons and effectively prevent criminals from bringing in guns from out of the country completely (just like we do with drugs), we can I guess have that conversation (especially about your magic wand and how it works). Otherwise, I think the only way to truly convince people to put new laws in place is to show that we are trying to enforce the $%^#%$ laws that we already have.

Also, it might help to clear up the logic chain:

1 - Defund the police (so fewer of them to help you when needed)
2 - All cops are bastards
3 - Only the police should be armed

[ed]

FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Note that even if a da chooses to drop charges the above is a big violation of FEDERAL law. Completely independent of local law.

Now note this well

The feds don't prosecute. That felon should have locked up for 10. It don't happen.

Note also that chi could be cleaned up in 6 months. They just don't give a shit.

[Ben Trovado]

That's an odd way to say "the local politicians are in bed with the gangs," but sure.

[ed]

So are the feds, evidentially

[Anaxagoras]

FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Note that even if a da chooses to drop charges the above is a big violation of FEDERAL law. Completely independent of local law.

Now note this well

The feds don't prosecute. That felon should have locked up for 10. It don't happen.

Note also that chi could be cleaned up in 6 months. They just don't give a shit.

Wouldn't have prevented the mass shooting in Buffalo or the one in Uvalde.

But I agree with prosecuting more of these.

What about raising the age to 21 to buy a high powered rifle such as an AR-15? What about limiting magazine capacities? What about requiring a license to own such weapons? People like yourself would still be able to do what you do. How do we make sure that a maniac doesn't murder a class full of children?

[ed]

FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Note that even if a da chooses to drop charges the above is a big violation of FEDERAL law. Completely independent of local law.

Now note this well

The feds don't prosecute. That felon should have locked up for 10. It don't happen.

Note also that chi could be cleaned up in 6 months. They just don't give a shit.

Wouldn't have prevented the mass shooting in Buffalo or the one in Uvalde.

But I agree with prosecuting more of these.

What about raising the age to 21 to buy a high powered rifle such as an AR-15? What about limiting magazine capacities? What about requiring a license to own such weapons? People like yourself would still be able to do what you do. How do we make sure that a maniac doesn't murder a class full of children?

Why 18? If a child can define it's gender at 5 or 6. At 18 a kid can be in the armed forces. Let me ask, limit under 21 to certain classes of weapons maybe?
An AR is not a "high powered rifle". You can't us it for deer in some places.
Mag capacity limits are sound bites for the ignorant. Anyone with minimal practice can swap ouit 5red or 10 rnd mas very quickly.
License? Based on what? Fact is I don't trust politions to not use licensing as a way to ID owners. Happened in the past.
You are never going to stop a maniac. Fact is that far far more people are killed in the inner cities by black folks but no one really cares.

I am happy to talk more laws when current ones are enforced.

And, yes, violence is being normalized by the left. And that is empowering to nuts.

[Anaxagoras]

An AR is not a "high powered rifle".

You can always find something even more powerful, but compared to a typical handgun it is. I know that you are the expert on guns, and I'm not, but if it can shoot ammunition that can go through a bullet-proof vest, that's effectively pretty powerful. And people are easier to kill than an elk or a bear.

[Ben Trovado]

An AR is not a "high powered rifle".

You can always find something even more powerful, but compared to a typical handgun it is. I know that you are the expert on guns, and I'm not, but if it can shoot ammunition that can go through a bullet-proof vest, that's effectively pretty powerful. And people are easier to kill than an elk or a bear.

If we pick on this round - a glorified .22 in most cases, because there are 2 major variations (among others), what do we do about 30.06 hunting rifles? This particular rifle is only semi-automatic and is a small enough round to NOT be recommended for hunting things larger than a coyote or rabbit. It won't stop a deer, and ethically is not supposed to be used for them. A .44 handgun is as powerful.

The number of crimes this rifle is used in is tiny. The number of times a criminal needs more than 10 round in a magazine is even smaller.

As importantly, these limits are all in California, among other places. If these existing laws are not enforced, why expand them further? So that they can be selectively be enforced against otherwise law-abiding owners, but ignore the gang members involved in "mutual combat"?

[Anaxagoras]

The number of crimes this rifle is used in is tiny. The number of times a criminal needs more than 10 round in a magazine is even smaller.

And if we limit it to just mass shootings resulting in 10 or more fatalities and not related to gang violence? The kind that make front-page national news. People who kill for no other reason than notoriety or ideology and are willing to die in the process. I'm not talking about petty crime for profit.

[Anaxagoras]

If we pick on this round - a glorified .22 in most cases, because there are 2 major variations (among others), what do we do about 30.06 hunting rifles? This particular rifle is only semi-automatic and is a small enough round to NOT be recommended for hunting things larger than a coyote or rabbit. It won't stop a deer, and ethically is not supposed to be used for them. A .44 handgun is as powerful.

One other point, what sort of rifle does the military give its infantrymen? Something that could take down an elephant?

It's based on a design that was originally made for military purposes. It uses the same caliber of ammo as an M16 rifle. It's basically optimized not for hunting but for war.

[Doctor X]

Anax-chanSama

I write it this way with all references to Your Mom and the 恨みのワイフ奥様 to avoid your criminally negligent misunderstanding and questionable commitment to Sparkle Motion.

You asked a number of questions regarding gun laws and ended with:

How do we make sure that a maniac doesn't murder a class full of children?

Unfortunately, I submit that the source of that problem is far more complicated, expensive, and therefore easily avoid by those tasked to solve it. The piecemeal gun restrictions, which as some have noted, are redundant given laws not enforced and will not prevent that. We ["We?" – Ed.] want a solution, but it is not easy. Further, like airline disasters that do not involve sharing a middle seat between asthmatic and sparks, 僕たち [馬鹿！– 編集者], these incidents distract from what is happening every day in Philadelphia, Chicago, and other Third World Countries without Sport Teams.

[Sacremento? – Ed.]

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... /brood.gif

Did I mention Your Mom?

– J.D.