Hey, you're the expert.
I personally couldn't care less about economics. There are too many things to be right and passionate about for me to start worrying about all that theoretical insanity.
Right. I must've missed that because I don't care about this conversation at all. Labels were never my thing to begin with. But you can call me right-wing if it makes you feel better, as long as I get to keep my trans boyfriend.
Uh. Okay. If you say so. I wasn't going to say anything about the No True Scotsman fallacy, but you really did force my hand with that last one. That's outright silly, and a pretty vile attempt to coerce conformity out of of other progressives who don't align with your perspective on economics by thinking you can label them "right-wing" for it.
Capitalism ends where left begins.
I'm not sure if you're gatekeeping or just generalizing.
Whataboutism is a form of informal fallacy.
You tell me. You're the one who brought up army protocols.
Friendly fire. The reason I know so much about law enforcement methodology isn't because I like them. I just genuinely believe that the community is wrong to chastise in this instance.
We have stricter rules of engagement for the Army when deployed, “Do not fire unless fired upon”
Not only is this a fallacy of false equivalence, but it's also straight up false. This is only one of many rules of engagement that are applied contextually, such as during a reconnaissance operation where stealth is necessary, or a peacekeeping mission where hostile combatants aren't necessarily expected. It is also not usually the role of a peacekeeper to chase down criminals to enforce another country's laws. Obvious exceptions to this rule apply in the same way that they apply to law enforcement to allow them to protect themselves during times when they reasonably believe that a gun-toting individual is an immediate and real threat to them. The same logic usually also applies to ordinary civilians acting in self-defense.
also in many circumstances if someone throws down their weapon you must cease fire.
Of course. Until they draw a second one.
Fleeing from police while holding a firearm is not a normal everyday situation that a citizen or an officer finds themselves in, nor should it be treated as one. Unfortunately, a consequence of being human is that elevated stress levels can lead to less than ideal outcomes in the heat of the moment. The law regarding situations like this accounts for this reality and would easily favor the officer.
A suspect fleeing while holding a firearm makes the officer's fear for his own safety reasonable. It may have been best if he had noticed the firearm that was dropped, but I don't know enough to say whether he knew about the suspect's second firearm and was instructing him to drop both. I find it unlikely, and believe that I would have acted in a similar fashion had I seen a suspect that I'd just seen with a gun digging around in his waistband (for another).
At first glance, the officer appears to have acted with vigilance and to the best of his ability in a dangerous and high-intensity predicament, but his history makes that questionable. Ultimately, this outcome was the fault of the suspect for running away from a police officer while carrying a gun in the first place. Safe, sane people don't do that, and it immediately creates a dangerous and hairy situation for everyone involved. It's a line beyond which there are inherently less guarantees for the suspect, as the officer's legally permitted option to open fire relies entirely on the reasonable perception of imminent danger.
you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don't have a social circle is wonk to me.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they're bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
I hang out in enough blue spaces to see the cries for renewed bans on particular styles of guns. A lot of the stuff I own in Texas would already be a felony to own in NY and Cali.
There also appears to be a variety of definitions for "common sense" gun laws, and it seems to depend largely on an individual's locality. Universal background checks is a no-brainer, but I'd like to keep my semi-auto rifle and standard capacity mags.
Besides, everyone knows it's actually handguns that are responsible for a vast majority of violent crimes involving firearms, which potentially makes them next up on the chopping block once the precedent is set by the first ban of a style of firearm that's rarely used in violent gun crimes rarely in comparison.
Update: It was because I triggered bot detection for not pandering in enough comment sections.
If you can't turn someone red, just make them a single issue voter.
Voting blue can hurt sometimes as a gun-owning Texan, but I do what I must. I didn't always have that mentality.
They aren't producing anything. They're reposters, not content creators.
I was permanently banned from the Reddit sub without recourse for posting this despite not breaking any rules. I'm slowly making the migration over thanks to such encouragement.