Snipers take out cops at Dallas protest

[Rukh Whitefang]

17 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

I do not trust you, I don't trust strangers, I do not trust strangers to have guns...

Ive passed multiple background checks, registered with the sheriff department, fingerprints on file, mentally stable under oath, taken training classes.  Thats all what I had to do to get a cpl. Thats quite a lot of info you know about me. Seriously, there are 300 million plus guns in the U.S and somewhere around 12 trillion rounds of ammo, if all gun owners were violent, you would know.

 

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

7 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Ive passed multiple background checks, registered with the sheriff department, fingerprints on file, mentally stable under oath, taken training classes.  Thats all what I had to do to get a cpl. Thats quite a lot of info you know about me. Seriously, there are 300 million plus guns in the U.S and somewhere around 12 trillion rounds of ammo, if all gun owners were violent, you would know.

 

Certification doesn't really guarantee me anything. There are licensed doctors who mess up. Just saying

[Victor-933]

23 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

I do not trust you, I don't trust strangers, I do not trust strangers to have guns...

Are you acquainted with every police officer and soldier in your country? No? They're strangers too, then. Do you not trust them with guns? Or are they a separate class of citizen that are more equal than the rest of us?

Don't even start with that "cops are trained better" bullshit either. They're not, the vast majority of officers train with their weapon exactly once a year, and that's only because they have to. They aren't even held accountable for their fuckups. So why do they deserve to have guns but us second-class normies don't? We face the same threats they do. Maybe not as often, but generally the cops only show up after one of us has been mugged or raped.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held, via Warren v. D.C., that police are not responsible for your protection unless you are in their custody. All they do is come photograph the mess. Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon for police response times to be half an hour or more -- the national average is ten minutes, more than enough time for you and your loved ones to bleed to death. In some places like parts of Chicago and Philadelphia the police flat out do not respond to calls. Again, the police have no duty to protect you.

This was reaffirmed in New York a few years ago, when a knife-wielding madman on a murder spree boarded the subway and started threatening people. Two armed and on-duty police officers barricaded themselves in a closet, leaving the rest of the civilians alone, locked in a steel can with an armed murderer. It took an unarmed man, Joseph Lozito, to subdue this maniac, while sustaining numerous lacerations in the process. When he tried to sue NYC, guess what happened -- they tossed his case and said "tough shit, not our problem".

 

I don't give a flying fuck about what some idiot like you in another country has to say about guns. Our laws, culture, and legal precedent are clear: we are responsible for our own safety -- so fuck you for trying to deny the black pastor, the ailing grandmother, and the single mother the only universally effective self defense implement that exists.

[Rukh Whitefang]

38 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Gun = They kill people

Cars = They are use to transport people and goods.

Guns= Used for hunting, self defense and sportmanship. And when misused can kill people.

Cars= Used to move people around. And when misused can kill people.

3 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Certification doesn't really guarantee me anything. There are licensed doctors who mess up.

So basically your afraid of firearms therefore people shouldn't have them? Boohoo for you.

[PastryOfApathy]

Having a debate as to whether or not we should outlaw guns or something is retarded since that's literally never going to happen in the US...ever.

Like it's a pointless "debate" that will never accomplish anything except make you look like an asshole, and really you might as well argue as to whether or not Mega Man has a robo-penis or not since it's about as realistic a possibility

Not that anyone will listen of course but whatever.

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

4 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

Are you acquainted with every police officer and soldier in your country? No? They're strangers too, then. Do you not trust them with guns? Or are they a separate class of citizen that are more equal than the rest of us?

Don't even start with that "cops are trained better" bullshit either. They're not, the vast majority of officers train with their weapon exactly once a year, and that's only because they have to. They aren't even held accountable for their fuckups. So why do they deserve to have guns but us second-class normies don't? We face the same threats they do. Maybe not as often, but generally the cops only show up after one of us has been mugged or raped.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held, via Warren v. D.C., that police are not responsible for your protection unless you are in their custody. All they do is come photograph the mess. Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon for police response times to be half an hour or more -- the national average is ten minutes, more than enough time for you and your loved ones to bleed to death. In some places like parts of Chicago and Philadelphia the police flat out do not respond to calls. Again, the police have no duty to protect you.

This was reaffirmed in New York a few years ago, when a knife-wielding madman on a murder spree boarded the subway and started threatening people. Two armed and on-duty police officers barricaded themselves in a closet, leaving the rest of the civilians alone, locked in a steel can with an armed murderer. It took an unarmed man, Joseph Lozito, to subdue this maniac, while sustaining numerous lacerations in the process. When he tried to sue NYC, guess what happened -- they tossed his case and said "tough shit, not our problem".

 

I don't give a flying fuck about what some idiot like you in another country has to say about guns. Our laws, culture, and legal precedent are clear: we are responsible for our own safety -- so fuck you for trying to deny the black pastor, the ailing grandmother, and the single mother the only universally effective self defense implement that exists.

Too Long Didn't read (Probably later)

But I will tell you even cops should be banned of guns. So my statement still stands

I can approve with people using broadswords

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, Victor-933 said:

Of course, not all shootings fall under that umbrella (in fact, most don't). And, for the record, I'm definitely not agreeing with the perpetrator(s), but the actions do carry a certain degree of understandability.

There's nothing "understandable" about murdering innocent people.

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

5 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Guns= Used for hunting, self defense and sportmanship. And when misused can kill people.

Cars= Used to move people around. And when misused can kill people.

So basically your afraid of firearms therefore people shouldn't have them? Boohoo for you.

Hunting is really great! Shooting animals is great fun so fun it's a sport!

 

 

[PastryOfApathy]

Just now, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

But I will tell you even cops should be banned of guns. So my statement still stands

"Oh fuck Jim! This perp's got a gun!"

"It's okay Bob, the department gave us these nightsticks in emergencies like this!"

"Alright Jim, we'll charge 'em on 3."

"1...2...*blam blam dead*," because thinking that making guns illegal suddenly means criminals won't be able to use them is retarded.

1 minute ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Hunting is really great! Shooting animals is great fun so fun it's a sport!

Oh no...

[Victor-933]

3 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

There's nothing "understandable" about murdering innocent people.

That's the thing though. In many peoples' eyes, the cops aren't innocent. Many view the silent majority as complicit in upholding the so-called thin blue line that allows the handful of shitheads to murder someone and get paid for it.

 

Again I'm not agreeing with it or condoning it; it's an all-around shitshow... I'm simply saying that I can see why some people come to these conclusions.

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

7 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

"1...2...*blam blam dead*," because thinking that making guns illegal suddenly means criminals won't be able to use them is retarded.

They should die because they're dumb enough to now know how to use a shield :V

 

> People here saying we shouldnt trust cop

Then why should I trust civilians having guns also?

 

[PastryOfApathy]

3 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

That's the thing though. In many peoples' eyes, the cops aren't innocent. Many view the silent majority as complicit in upholding the so-called thin blue line that allows the handful of shitheads to murder someone and get paid for it.

 

Again I'm not agreeing with it or condoning it; it's an all-around shitshow... I'm simply saying that I can see why some people come to these conclusions.

I can see why someone can come to those conclusions.

I can also see why someone would think strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up a school full of children in the name of God is also a totally swell idea that's worth pursuing.

That doesn't change the fact that it's positively retarded, and not worth anything even remotely close to sympathy.

[Victor-933]

Just now, PastryOfApathy said:

I can see why someone can come to those conclusions.

I can also see why someone would think strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up a school full of children in the name of God is also a totally swell idea that's worth pursuing.

That doesn't change the fact that it's positively retarded, and not worth anything even remotely close to sympathy.

I'm not giving it any sympathy nor do I think it deserves any. You can understand something without supporting or sympathizing with it.

This shit is part of the whole problem, apparently we're not allowed to try and analyze shit, the only acceptable reaction is unbridled hate -- never mind the fact you can't fucking fix the problems without knowing what causes them.

[PastryOfApathy]

Just now, Victor-933 said:

I'm not giving it any sympathy nor do I think it deserves any. You can understand something without supporting or sympathizing with it.

This shit is part of the whole problem, apparently we're not allowed to try and analyze shit, the only acceptable reaction is unbridled hate -- never mind the fact you can't fucking fix the problems without knowing what causes them.

Oh I know what you really meant, and I agree these sorts of mindsets should be analyzed so we can fight against them.

But it's simply the phrasing that rubs me the wrong way.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

mfw I'm thankful my friend who lives in Dallas is okay and away from where everything happened.

[willow]

the thing I hate most about the cars vs. guns argument is that it kind of simplifies them to just "these are two things that kill people" and ignores everything else about those two things

sure banning all guns won't solve the problem of gun violence, but I also don't understand the vitriol some people have when it comes to making sure certain people can't acquire weapons as easily, military grade ones at that

20 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

I don't give a flying fuck about what some idiot like you in another country has to say about guns. Our laws, culture, and legal precedent are clear: we are responsible for our own safety -- so fuck you for trying to deny the black pastor, the ailing grandmother, and the single mother the only universally effective self defense implement that exists.

pretty sure he's Hawaiian though

[Victor-933]

7 minutes ago, willow said:

pretty sure he's Hawaiian though

Might as well be a different country. They already decided violating federal law (the Brady Act/FOPA) was acceptable when it comes to fucking over gun owners.

[willow]

3 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

Might as well be a different country.

well to be fair it was and then we stole it basically

[Tsuujou]

4 hours ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Why can't you Americans just give up your guns, fuck your second amendment. Don't get me started with your excuse about "It's not the guns, it's the people"

 

3 hours ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

 

OK I come to a conclusion now that amuricans can't understand life without guns.

Now if you guys don't mind, if people get killed by guns blame yourselves

Good god. Shut up. lol

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

America is the best :V

[Victor-933]

21 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

snip

Jesus Christ you are such a whiny little shitheel. I hope you don't expect anyone to take you seriously, especially with your childish and flippant bullshit like

2 hours ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Too Long Didn't read (Probably later)

 

[MalletFace]

I've heard Martin Luther King, Jr. brought up more times in the past few weeks than I have in a long time, so I figure I'd better bring up an excerpt of his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."

4 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I can name 12 different people who all drive on a daily basis with either a suspended license or revoked license. Better yet, until you reach an elderly age your not required to retake a drivers test (unless you get caught with a dui and such). Tell me how thats regulated. Its assumed people know how to drive.

Heavy regulation and pressure to increase the safety of automobiles has actually reduced their danger. Your argument is similar to speaking against the larger impact of vaccines by pointing out that you know some parents that do not allow their children to be vaccinated. They do worsen the issue, but that argument misses the points.

People were so scared of the sudden rise of automobiles that they not only began regulating who may operate which automobiles as early as the 1890s, they also began regulating where one may operate them, for what reason one may operate them, how one may operate them, when one may operate them, and under what conditions one may operate them.

Of course, the auto industry fought back. They said everything from "Regulation isn't targeting the real issue" to "The government wants to wipe the automobile from the earth." There was even racism just to sweeten the deal.

"A violation of the fundamental principles of American justice" "The city will be wide open to the criminal elements" "Accidents will increase" Sound familiar?

The result, though, was largely acceptance of auto regulation by the people, the government, and the industry. The industry even started using safety as a marketing tool after it gave up fighting back in the '50s. Because of the unanimous acceptance of safety and its forced implementation - in quite the ironic ending - people are safer.

Of course people didn't stop dying because of automobile regulation; however, they did start dying in a lower proportion.

Also, assuming everybody can drive wasn't a thing in the U.S. until the '50s. Before the industry pushed for the construction of more road networks and pro-car legislation, it was assumed that it was basically just people obsessed with cars - car-nuts  - that owned and drove cars and killed people.

15 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Events like this frustrate and remind me how reactionary most people are. People like to use major events as justification for their beliefs, for their hatred of others, and finally such weakness has manifested itself into a major event itself.

Despite what the method may suggest, killing police to end what one sees as oppression is not reactionary. There was no desire to reestablish an old status quo.

Saying things like "The blacks need to learn their place and respect the police," "Blacks need to learn to respect authority," and "Blacks need to stop hating police" is reactionary. The result of such opinions does reestablish an element of the status quo of the antebellum era of the Southern United States.

5 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Why don't people give up vehicles? Because those kill lots of people every year too.

The wording of this just makes it sound like we like killing people. It would be funny sans recent killings.

[Victor-933]

5 minutes ago, Sylver said:

I think it's safe to say that America doesn't give a shit about the underlying problem. How many years have mass shootings been occurring? Does it look like the body count or frequency is going down anytime soon?

Mass shootings have only been on the uptick in the past few decades. Something changed in the 80s and 90s: Reagan gutting mental healthcare services, the rise of the modern War on Drugs, mass medication of children for every disorder under the sun... Any one of these, or even all three, or more.

I don't understand how someone can look at somebody methodically going around a school deleting two dozen toddlers, and single out the gun as if it's somehow normal to be able to ruthlessly murder a bunch of strangers in cold blood. It takes someone monumentally fucked in the head to go through with something like that. A lot of these shootings show some form of planning, too -- meaning these people sat and thought long and hard about how they were gonna murder a bunch of people.

Saying things like "getting rid of guns will make these attacks less deadly" or whatever does literally nothing to address the problems of why people feel compelled to fantasize about mass murder instead of seek help for obviously abnormal thoughts or actions. Whether or not it would even have any impact is highly debatable -- someone planning on a killing spree might lose interest, or they might just use a hammer, or a knife, or fire, or a homemade bomb, or any of an infinite number of other ways to kill -- nearly all of which already kill more people annually than the so-called assault weapons so many decry.

I'm not saying that nothing can be done at all, either. But with how hotly politicized the issue is, and especially with how certain political groups act on the issue, I'd prefer nothing be done. The reason gun owners are so obstinate is we see how far things get taken in the name of "protecting the children" -- it leads to incidents like this woman who was stabbed to death in her own driveway by an ex who violated a restraining order because the state violated its own laws regarding gun permits. It leads to mandatory interaction with agencies that are never created or given funding, making it impossible to comply with the law. It leads to laws being passed in the middle of the night, behind closed doors and with zero public input.

If that's the kind of "common sense gun safety" that our politicians are peddling, I'm not buying.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

This is a fucking mess.

Just let them all kill each other if they want to.

It doesn't matter any way because it's never going to stop.

Take away guns it won't stop

Don't it won't stop

It's just not going to stop.

[LowPitchFart]

19 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

Saying things like "getting rid of guns will make these attacks less deadly" or whatever does literally nothing to address the problems of why people feel compelled to fantasize about mass murder instead of seek help for obviously abnormal thoughts or actions.

There's a lot of culprits involved. Although I can't think of much that's different from half a century ago aside from cultural shifts and new mediums which have tremendously improved our communication. Mentally ill people who commit mass murder have always been around. Guns have also been around for a long time, although now we have better ones.

12 minutes ago, FenrirDarkWolf said:

This is a fucking mess.

Just let them all kill each other if they want to.

It doesn't matter any way because it's never going to stop.

Take away guns it won't stop

Don't it won't stop

It's just not going to stop.

Sorry I had to.

[Lucyfish]

5 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I can name 12 different people who all drive on a daily basis with either a suspended license or revoked license. Better yet, until you reach an elderly age your not required to retake a drivers test (unless you get caught with a dui and such). Tell me how thats regulated. Its assumed people know how to drive.

In regards to firearms in My state, in order to purchase a firearm you have to pass a federal background check, sign papers under oath indication you are not a criminal nor have a mental illness. Register the firearm (if a handgun). Its even more paperwork for a conceal carry license (which I have).

Furthermore more gun laws would NOT have prevented the Dallas police shooting. The suspect was an Army Reservist, had basic military firearms training, and had a clean record. And the rifle he used is reportedly an old soviet surplus ww2 rifle (sks).

"The law wont work every single time so we should just say fuck it and have no laws."

 

okay

[Ricky]

 

7 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Why don't people give up vehicles? Because those kill lots of people every year too.

BAN CHAIRS

BAN ALL THE CHAIRS

[MalletFace]

4 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

Mass shootings have only been on the uptick in the past few decades.

It may be important to note that they had been falling since the '40s and bottomed out around 1970. In addition, homicides by gun - especially handgun - dropped off in '93 after rising since '86.

4 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

Mass shootings have only been on the uptick in the past few decades. Something changed in the 80s and 90s: Reagan gutting mental healthcare services, the rise of the modern War on Drugs, mass medication of children for every disorder under the sun... Any one of these, or even all three, or more.

I don't understand how someone can look at somebody methodically going around a school deleting two dozen toddlers, and single out the gun as if it's somehow normal to be able to ruthlessly murder a bunch of strangers in cold blood. It takes someone monumentally fucked in the head to go through with something like that. A lot of these shootings show some form of planning, too -- meaning these people sat and thought long and hard about how they were gonna murder a bunch of people.

Saying things like "getting rid of guns will make these attacks less deadly" or whatever does literally nothing to address the problems of why people feel compelled to fantasize about mass murder instead of seek help for obviously abnormal thoughts or actions. Whether or not it would even have any impact is highly debatable -- someone planning on a killing spree might lose interest, or they might just use a hammer, or a knife, or fire, or a homemade bomb, or any of an infinite number of other ways to kill -- nearly all of which already kill more people annually than the so-called assault weapons so many decry.

Well...

Around 1900 is when most can agree firearms started started to be modern. However, most people didn't have the new weapons because there was no need if you were hunting or defending yourself, they were rather new and expensive, and most people lived in areas where guns were not even that popular. Brutal killings happened around this time, but a mass shooting wasn't likely. There were only a rare few for decades.

Around 1920 is when submachine guns became available to anybody that was willing to purchase them. Submachine guns - unsurprisingly - were quickly used by gangs in major cities to do their business, but most people didn't care to buy them because there was no need if yourself, they were rather new and expensive, and most people lived in areas where guns were not even that popular. Most mass shootings were caused by gang violence, but several mass shootings happened outside of that sphere. There were quite a few, but only a handful if you throw out gangs.

Around 1940 is when all of the new weapons of the last half-century began to become really cheap; however, people were getting tired of all of the shootings. FDR and Congress stepped up to this public outrage and passed both the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act. Those Chicago Typewriters were swept off the streets, a huge tax was placed on firearms during the Great Depression, and a whole host of regulations were placed on firearms. You really couldn't buy a gun unless you had too much money to spend. Even more, a whole generation of Americans was given professional training on the proper use and care of most kinds of firearm. Despite this being one of the worst periods for mental health due to the Great Depression and barbaric treatment, mass shootings were almost unheard of, and homicides by gun were pretty low.

From 1940 to 1986, several assassinations and regional increases in gun violence triggered new legislation. However, in 1986, the Firearm Owners' Protection Act was passed. While it did ban machine guns and certain persons from owning firearms, it significantly reduced restrictions on the sale and transport of long guns, handguns, and submachineguns. Around this same time, the NRA begins pushing the public to force Congress to not only pass FOPA, but to begin to repeal prior federal and state acts. American gun culture as we know it today was born out of this, as people didn't just purchase weapons for historical reasons, for self-defense, or for hunting; they purchased weapons as a form of protest and political expression. Because anybody could purchase modern firearms and there was a cultural reason to stockpile deadly weapons, people did. Without missing a beat, homicide by handgun nearly doubled, homicide by other guns increased, and mass shootings started happening in earnest again. Because of the prevalence of modern guns in the average household and the need for gangs to avoid new regulations, most mass shootings were now committed by individuals who would have not otherwise had access to firearms because of poverty or disinterest.

In the early '90s, the increase in gun violence lead to the passing of two new pieces of legislation which increased the regulation of handguns, long guns, and semiautomatic weapons. Again, without missing a beat, homicide by handgun nearly halved, homicide by other guns decreased, and mass shootings topped out. In the early 2000s, mass shootings and gun violence actually started to be less common.

You wanna know what happened after that? Everything about the American gun culture born in the '80s had finally matured despite the legislation passed in the '90s. Guess who was appointed to the Supreme Court in '86 and had consistently acted in ways that supported organizations like the NRA and the deregulation of firearms. Guess which organization got its own little PAC and slowly began increasing its influence in local governments and the federal government? Guess which right-leaning movement was born that supported the post-1986 interpretation of the Second Amendment? Guess which take on conservative ideas that helped indoctrinate a whole generation of people on the new interpretation of the Second Amendment suddenly appeared? Guess what all of that culminated in?

The answers are Scalia, the NRA, the Tea Party, neoconservatism, and an American society that is obsessed with guns but won't admit it is a problem, if you were wondering. I don't see how somebody can look at any of these shootings and point to just one issue and go "Totally not that," or "Totally that." While most understand that the second strategy is dangerous, they forget that the first is just as bad. One can see these mass shootings just do not happen without access to guns and a culture that supports guns, but since guns have become so prevalent, we must also target motive for now.

That said, it appears this guy used violence as a means of political expression against much within the movements mentioned above. It is also a reason for committing heinous crimes that is much more readily acceptable to the average person than "Fuck humanity."

4 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

It leads to laws being passed in the middle of the night, behind closed doors and with zero public input.

Very few jurisdictions in the U.S. require public input on anything but representatives anyway.

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

http://bigstory.ap.org/c894476bcbcf4d98b68ae98b27e0a0ff

Yup it's getting worst

*grabs popcorn*

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

28 minutes ago, 6tails said:

>hours before the Dallas shooting

How is it 'getting worse' when this incident occurred BEFORE the mass shooting?

It's getting worst regardless of when it happened :V

[TrishaCat]

10 hours ago, MalletFace said:

what the method may suggest, killing police to end what one sees as oppression is not reactionary. There was no desire to reestablish an old status quo.

Saying things like "The blacks need to learn their place and respect the police," "Blacks need to learn to respect authority," and "Blacks need to stop hating police" is reactionary. The result of such opinions does reestablish an element of the status quo of the antebellum era of the Southern United States.

I meant reactionary as in "a quick response without much thought", as in a reaction to something. Not in the political definition of the word. I don't like how people are quick to let their immediate feelings about something cloud their judgement and form an opinion about a large group of people over events that occur. (i.e.: the response people have to Islam as a result of events of terrorism. The response people have to police after seeing some police officers wrongfully killing blacks. The response people have to groups like BLM in response to the killing of police, etc.). Such feelings are what led to this event. However....

You say that as if the killing of police was done out of a desire to see an end to oppression. I suppose one could make such a point, but to say its not a reactionary action is ignoring what happened.

The police were killed in response to the murder of many innocent blacks by the police. That is an unlawful and irresponsible response to such events. It could also be seen as being in opposition to proper reform within the police department in favor of violence, which would increase, not decrease, the trust between the police and the people who they are supposed to protect, thus creating the larger possibility of future violence.

Furthermore, in no way I was implying that "The blacks need to learn their place and respect the police" or anything of the sort. Rather, I was trying to take a broad stance and say that people should not allow themselves to use events that occur to form a judgement about an overall group of people. It frustrates me that people use the police attacks on blacks as a means of hating the police as a whole, and thus, acting out on it. It frustrates me that people use these events as a means of blaming black people and/or movements like BLM as terrible people. I take issue with people allowing their immediate feelings to cloud their judgement and make irresponsible thoughts, feelings, and actions towards groups of people as a result.

Furthermore, it is not a reactionary opinion to have that people, in general, should respect the police. I am not referring to the black community specifically. The police, job wise, exist to, and please excuse me if this comes off as cliche, serve and protect. They are supposed to be the authority, the people people look up to and trust when in need of help. Obviously, the current state of the police and the response some police officers have had would certainly make it difficult to trust the police. However, saying that people should continue to trust the police does not even come close to "reestablishing an element of the status quo of the antebellum era of the Southern United States", as you are implying that saying "people should trust the police" is directly akin to blatant racism and is holding back police reform, which is extremely far from the truth. One can trust and respect a group of people while desiring reform and encouraging such. In no way are the two contradictory. 

[Butters]

12 hours ago, willow said:

well to be fair it was and then we stole it basically

That's pretty much our whole history though!

[#00Buck]

LOL @ self-hating Americans. 

Go live in Syria if you're so ungrateful. 

Yeah, all this unrestricted freedom is so uncomfortable. Please take my rights away. I want to "feel safe."

[Toboe]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

LOL @ self-hating Americans. 

Go live in Syria if you're so ungrateful. 

Yeah, all this unrestricted freedom is so uncomfortable. Please take my rights away. I want to "feel safe."

DONT TOUCH MY RIGHT TO BE SHOT BY SOME GUN NUT!

GUN-ENTITLEMENT IS FREEDOM!

[#00Buck]

Just now, Toboe said:

DONT TOUCH MY RIGHT TO BE SHOT BY SOME GUN NUT!

GUN-ENTITLEMENT IS FREEDOM!

BUILD A WALL TRUMP 2016!

[Toboe]

Just now, #00Buck said:

BUILD A WALL TRUMP 2016!

WALL IN THE NRA!

[#00Buck]

Just now, Toboe said:

WALL IN THE NRA!

THE WALL JUST GOT TEN FEET HIGHER!!!

 

 

[Butters]

9 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

LOL @ self-hating Americans. 

 

;3 The most American thing you can do is criticize your government. That's pretty much how our nation was born. (That and the genocide and land grabbing.) 

 Are you with the Enclave? :V

[#00Buck]

Just now, Butters said:

;3 The most American thing you can do is criticize your government. That's pretty much how our nation was born. (That and the genocide and land grabbing.) 

 Are you with the Enclave? :V

I'm with daddy he will fix everything. 

 

[Toboe]

24 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

THE WALL JUST GOT TEN FEET HIGHER!!!

 

 

Dude, Wallbuilding is something for chinese or germans. 10 more feet on your pussy-palisade? Pff

[Ricky]

4 hours ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

It's getting worst regardless of when it happened :V

Seems like your grammar is getting worst. Too.

[DrGravitas]

I think its worth mentioning that the police used a bomb disposal robot to instead deliver a bomb and kill one of the shooters. I mean, it's basically an improvised armed drone at that point. I find that somewhat disconcerting even given the circumstances.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/is-it-ok-to-send-a-police-robot-to-deliver-a-bomb-to-kill-an-active-shooter/

 

[DrGravitas]

I am not familiar with this Philadelphia thing.

[Toboe]

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

Philadelphia earned the moniker "The City That Bombed Itself" for what they did in 1985.

Could have been worse...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24183879

 

[Toboe]

Just now, 6tails said:

Yea, but that was a mistake, not intentional. Hell, had that happened and detonated, it would have either been WWIII or we'd have had a much earlier world-wide nuclear decommissioning.

The country that dropped nukes on itself

[Ricky]

2 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Yea, but that was a mistake, not intentional. Hell, had that happened and detonated, it would have either been WWIII or we'd have had a much earlier world-wide nuclear decommissioning.

How in the name of all that fucks, do you ACCIDENTALLY set of a nuclear bomb? >:c

I mean, they are intentionally designed so that won't happen.

[Toboe]

Just now, Ricky said:

How in the name of all that fucks, do you ACCIDENTALLY set of a nuclear bomb? >:c

I mean, they are intentionally designed so that won't happen.

There is a race: One side tries to invent more foolproof systems, god tries to invent more foolish people. God is winning.

[Toboe]

But atleast they are more careful with nukes now!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident

[Ricky]

2 minutes ago, 6tails said:

there were a bunch of steps one had to do to arm a bomb

 

3 minutes ago, 6tails said:

In this case, the bomb self-armed

 

Yeah, hmm... They fucked that up pretty good.

[Toboe]

16 minutes ago, Ricky said:

 

 

Yeah, hmm... They fucked that up pretty good.

Hey, only 3 out of 4 things preventing it  from going off failed. Security working as intended! :V