The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[LaCroix]

as soon as I saw madburger's link with all those 3-5 casualties, I was like, "does this shit include gang related violence?" sure enough. it's a useless list if we're talking about mass shooters by a modern definition. I've said this before, but mass shootings are on the rise. and why not? it works. with some preparation, you can take your anger out on society. there's a reason it's exploded in popularity in the past few decades.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Oh okay, so you guys are only interested in super high profile shit like what happened yesterday and not worried about actually making some meaningful changes.  Got it.  Meri's solution is probably better than just banning semi-auto rifles, btw.
jfc

[LaCroix]

meaningful change? you're not going to end gang violence or massacres over things like family disputes, etc. that stuff has always happened and will always happen to some degree, whether it's with guns or knives. modern day mass shootings to the degree that's happening in the US is a new phenomenon. we can keep our semi-autos, but it's just going to mean more casualties in these scenarios. with handguns, it's harder to kill as many people, so there's a better argument for keeping those around.

[Berkut]

Its very simple.

No matter what proposed restriction or sane law you can come up with, the gun nuts can come up with a scenario where it would not have stopped some particular class of violence.

If you propose banning asssault rifles, they point out that VT was handguns.

If you want to restrict handguns, it is pointed out that Orlando was a rifle.

If you want to reduce clip sizes, there is some case where some guy with 12 small clips managed to kill a bunch of people.

It doesn't matter - there is no possible restriction you can propose that these people will accept. The answer is always "No", and the justification is secondary.

More guns with more power and more ammo is the only possible answer.

[Admiral Yi]

Its very simple.

No matter what proposed restriction or sane law you can come up with, the gun nuts can come up with a scenario where it would not have stopped some particular class of violence.

If you propose banning asssault rifles, they point out that VT was handguns.

If you want to restrict handguns, it is pointed out that Orlando was a rifle.

If you want to reduce clip sizes, there is some case where some guy with 12 small clips managed to kill a bunch of people.

It doesn't matter - there is no possible restriction you can propose that these people will accept. The answer is always "No", and the justification is secondary.

More guns with more power and more ammo is the only possible answer.

So let's all agree the gun nuts are terrible people.  That should solve the problem.

[MadBurgerMaker]

meaningful change? you're not going to end gang violence or massacres over things like family disputes, etc. that stuff has always happened and will always happen to some degree, whether it's with guns or knives. modern day mass shootings to the degree that's happening in the US is a new phenomenon. we can keep our semi-autos, but it's just going to mean more casualties in these scenarios. with handguns, it's harder to kill as many people, so there's a better argument for keeping those around.

You would stop certain, specific, things, but again, the real problem is handguns (really, you need to completely get rid of both for big changes.  How realistic is that?  Well.....I dunno).  If you just ban semi-auto rifles, sure, you're not going to have some asshole "sniping" police from the top of a building with them anymore, which is good, but there's nothing stopping them from just taking a couple handguns and walking into a building and shooting everyone he sees. 

[Valmy]

Oh okay, so you guys are only interested in super high profile shit like what happened yesterday and not worried about actually making some meaningful changes.  Got it.  Meri's solution is probably better than just banning semi-auto rifles, btw.
jfc

I don't think meaningful change as far as banning guns is concerned is particularly practical. I don't see how a handgun ban is Constitutional.

[Barrister]

So why did police have to blow up the last shooter?

I mean - he was contained, right?  Surely they could have waited him out?  Or am I missing something.

[Valmy]

So why did police have to blow up the last shooter?

I mean - he was contained, right?  Surely they could have waited him out?  Or am I missing something.

Good question. I am rather shocked they had the means and option to blow him up in the first place.

[LaCroix]

I think to some degree there's a level of comfortableness that can maybe push someone over the edge into going from potentially-mass shooter to full fledged mass shooter. the more powerful the weapon available to him, the more likely he decides to actually mass shoot. yeah, there have been mass knifing incidences, but their frequency is so small that it basically never happens. would this guy have done the same thing if he couldn't use a semi-auto to play army-of-one rebel against The System committing genocide against his black brethren? I don't know, but I think it's possible that having a more powerful weapon can convince someone to take that next step.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I don't think meaningful change as far as banning guns is concerned is particularly practical. I don't see how a handgun ban is Constitutional.

Why not?  Continue to allow shotguns and bolt action rifles.  The populace is still...er...bearing arms.  Oh, I mean, yeah there would be massive opposition, just like there would be massive opposition to banning "assault style rifles" and shit like that.  But if you're going to do it, fucking do it right.

[derspiess]

So why did police have to blow up the last shooter?

I mean - he was contained, right?  Surely they could have waited him out?  Or am I missing something.

From what the DPD said he was still a threat and able to shoot at the police officers and possibly bystanders.

[Barrister]

So why did police have to blow up the last shooter?

I mean - he was contained, right?  Surely they could have waited him out?  Or am I missing something.

From what the DPD said he was still a threat and able to shoot at the police officers and possibly bystanders.

So you back up.

[Admiral Yi]

So you back up.

Is that a reasonable rule of engagement?  Cordon off 6 blocks of a city or whatever for however long it takes the guy to starve to death?

[MadBurgerMaker]

At some point weren't they also talking about being worried about bombs and things like that in there with him?