4 Officers Shot Dead By Snipers, 7 Wounded in Dallas Protest Against Police Violence

[Minimalist]

Again, shot =/= being killed. 

Being shot 16 times DOES = being killed.  I'm sure you have quickly forgotten Laquann McDonald.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/vide...nald-video

To help your memory.

[Brian37]

How many guns do we need before society says "enough"? We have more guns than citizens. What would be enough guns? 500,000,000? 1 billion? 2 billion? 3 billion? I can never get a good answer from the gun worshipers. It's always "TYRANNY, COMMIE, FASCIST". Bullshit selfish tirades because a gun's life is more important than a humans.

[MyGLeonTrotsky]

Hate to say it, but these officers had it coming to them. They did this to themselves. If you join yourself to any organization, faith, affiliation or otherwise, you have to be held responsible for the consequences of being a part of that organization or affiliation. If I joined the Mafia, I would be held responsible for what that entailed and these police are no different.

---

How many guns do we need before society says "enough"? We have more guns than citizens. What would be enough guns? 500,000,000? 1 billion? 2 billion? 3 billion? I can never get a good answer from the gun worshipers. It's always "TYRANNY, COMMIE, FASCIST". Bullshit selfish tirades because a gun's life is more important than a humans.

Communists are actually very pro-gun, despite right-winger claims. Mao Zedong himself said that change comes through the barrel of the gun. Of course, this isn't about communism but common sense gun legislation. The United States is the largest arms dealer in the world and has more gun deaths combined than deaths in all of the wars it's fought.

We need some common sense reforms, that much is obvious.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hate to say it, but these officers had it coming to them. They did this to themselves. If you join yourself to any organization, faith, affiliation or otherwise, you have to be held responsible for the consequences of being a part of that organization or affiliation. If I joined the Mafia, I would be held responsible for what that entailed and these police are no different.

I completely disagree. Communal guilt, especially when punished by vigilantism, is obnoxious to a free society.

We need some common sense reforms, that much is obvious.

Of course. But I doubt collective guilt will pave the way for such reforms.

[MyGLeonTrotsky]

Hate to say it, but these officers had it coming to them. They did this to themselves. If you join yourself to any organization, faith, affiliation or otherwise, you have to be held responsible for the consequences of being a part of that organization or affiliation. If I joined the Mafia, I would be held responsible for what that entailed and these police are no different.

I completely disagree. Communal guilt, especially when punished by vigilantism, is obnoxious to a free society.

We need some common sense reforms, that much is obvious.

Of course. But I doubt collective guilt will pave the way for such reforms.

Who has advocated for collective guilt? I am simply saying people need to take responsibility for their actions. Would you treat a member of ISIS as a free thinking moral agent, or as a member of ISIS? Obviously the latter. All I am saying is be consistent in applying that standard to the police and military. Most people exempt the police and military from the same standard they hold ISIS, the Mafia and gangs to. Even though they commit the same acts, for very similar reasons.

[paulpablo]

If you join yourself to any organization, faith, affiliation or otherwise, you have to be held responsible for the consequences of being a part of that organization or affiliation. 

I think it's two different things to say "They had it coming to them." And "They have to be held responsible for the consequences of being part of that group."

I agree that because the police do serve as the violent force that's used to try and uphold laws and because of this they expect to have acts of violence done to them.  That's the consequence they have to deal with and they do, I'm sure most of them do know that when they go out to do their job they fear those consequences 

But in this specific case of consequences I wouldn't put it in the way that they had it coming to them, but then my opinion probably on this probably won't matter to most people because my opinion of the blacklivesmatter organization is different to most people in this forum. 

But let's just put it another way....

If you had a bunch of blacklivesmatter protesters who were peacefully protesting then in some sort of cross fire incident they were killed by the police who were firing on violent protesters who were firing gun shots at the police, if your philosophy of being responsible for your affiliations is true and universally applied then surely being affiliated with blacklivesmatter means you believe these people had it coming to them because they have to deal with the consequences of being affiliated with the more violent members of this movement.

You mentioned faith also, so when innocent Muslims are gunned down because people think they're terrorists if your philosophy which you applied to the police is universally applicable and true then you also believe that innocent Muslims have it coming to them if they're gunned down, lets say the person didn't think they were terrorists, he just gunned them down because Muslims are sometimes terrorists and he wanted to gun down these other non terrorist Muslims in anger.

Affiliation is a word that can be used pretty vaguely too, do you think the American civilians in the twin towers had it coming to them during the 9 11 terrorist attacks because the twin towers and the occupants are affiliated  with America, who has an army, who interfered in the middle east.

I'm not even really sure what you mean when you say they had it coming to them, if you mean something like you think they deserved it, or it was bound to happen. I'm just expanding your premise to different circumstances to see if you still think these other people would have it coming to them to be killed for being affiliated with or part of a group.

[Godscreated]

I think the best thing to do when one is pulled over is to have your drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance card already out to hand to the officer before he/she gets to your vehicle, this will always show compliance with the law and the officer and it will keep the situation calm. Everyone knows the officer is going to ask for them so why not have them within easy reach, sunvisor would be a good place to keep both the vehicle registration and proof of insurance card. We all can do our part to help make a situation a calm situation.

Gc

[Thumpalumpacus]

I completely disagree. Communal guilt, especially when punished by vigilantism, is obnoxious to a free society.


Of course. But I doubt collective guilt will pave the way for such reforms.

Who has advocated for collective guilt?

You did, here:

If you join yourself to any organization, faith, affiliation or otherwise, you have to be held responsible for the consequences of being a part of that organization or affiliation.

To go on:

I am simply saying people need to take responsibility for their actions. Would you treat a member of ISIS as a free thinking moral agent, or as a member of ISIS? Obviously the latter.

In your first sentence, you advocate for the individual accepting personal responsibility. Yet in your last two sentences, you assign group guilt.

Perhaps you might make up your own mind first before lecturing others?

All I am saying is be consistent in applying that standard to the police and military. Most people exempt the police and military from the same standard they hold ISIS, the Mafia and gangs to. Even though they commit the same acts, for very similar reasons.

I'm not one of "most people". Perhaps you could consider the thought that you're barking up the wrong tree here? I mean, I'd like to be considered as an individual, too.

Filters are powerful things. Have you examined your own?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But let's just put it another way....

If you had a bunch of blacklivesmatter protesters who were peacefully protesting then in some sort of cross fire incident they were killed by the police who were firing on violent protesters who were firing gun shots at the police, if your philosophy of being responsible for your affiliations is true and universally applied then surely being affiliated with blacklivesmatter means you believe these people had it coming to them because they have to deal with the consequences of being affiliated with the more violent members of this movement.

That's right. Guilt-by-association cuts both ways.

Collective reprisal is no way to run a society.

[Brian37]

I think the best thing to do when one is pulled over is to have your drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance card already out to hand to the officer before he/she gets to your vehicle, this will always show compliance with the law and the officer and it will keep the situation calm. Everyone knows the officer is going to ask for them so why not have them within easy reach, sunvisor would be a good place to keep both the vehicle registration and proof of insurance card. We all can do our part to help make a situation a calm situation.

Gc

No, sorry, blacks have ended up dead, after being restrained AND ended up dead even when unarmed. I can show you video of a cop shooting an unarmed black guy in the FUCKING BACK. I can also show you video of cops confronting a white guy with a gun without killing him.

No, whites and blacks ARE NOT treated the same by police. Having a gun aimed at me by a cop for having a toy gun, and another time having thrown a wallet at a cop, and living both times, I know I am treated differently. In the first place I complied, in the second case I did not, but in both cases I survived.

Police need better training, they instead have a default position of being taught fear and battlefield training. But that is only one problem. You cannot rightfully say that you want police to be safe, and send them into the urban or suburban or rural areas, because GUN VIOLENCE isn't simply city, you cant rightfully say you want them safe, then constantly have them face an armed public, then sell more guns to the public because you are afraid of government tyranny. It is simply fucking teaching both to be paranoid. And that paranoia is great for gun sales.

Our gun obsession is the biggest problem, or flooded market does not help. But beyond that our economy sucks, and we don't invest enough in poor communities, or wages for all urban, suburban and rural middle class and poor. We don't do enough to invest in enough police, which constantly has them limited to one on one or two at best situations, we don't train the them in distance deescalation conflict resolution, we far too often train them to dominate and shoot first. 

And again, I still have never gotten a good answer as to how many guns would be enough, we already have more guns than citizens. When do we stop 1 billion guns? 5 billion guns? 

Nobody wants a nanny state and this is not about a gun grab, or about taking every single firearm of all types away. If we have to ban an individual type certainly the person who has that particular type should be paid for it, and if legal they certainly wouldn't be banned from owning other types. If you want a shotgun, or low power limited clip single shot riffle, for hunting or home protection, or a six or 8 capacity handgun, fine. But when you consider buying one, I think it is absurd going in being blind to the stats, just like abstinence only approach to sex education creates more problems. "Legal at time of buy" is the same type of blind ignorance and lack of pragmatism. It isn't enough to merely think you are good, and have good intent, or think you are a good shot. You are more likely to fuck yourself with one in the home than to protect yourself from a stranger or active shooter. Not enough potential buyers want to face those odds. Just like saying abstinence only  sex education does not work, isn't calling for a ban on heterosexual marriage.