Speaking of being sheltered from facts - "killing unarmed people" - the myth that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous. The issue is viable threat, thus unarmed people in custody are shackled.
Speaking of being sheltered from facts - "killing unarmed people" - the myth that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous. The issue is viable threat, thus unarmed people in custody are shackled.
And there is a wild conviction among gun advocates that the unarmed are the truly dangerous people, which is psychotic of course, and based on a lip-curling contempt for "gun-free zones" and the conviction that arming people in defense is the answer (it means more gun sales) instead of what we all know to be the solution: get rid of the guns.
I am starting a new and only loosely related topic about tribal perceptions about access to guns turned from one of freedom to compulsion. I am mystified at how persistently 'anti-gunners' I talk with claim that 'gun enthusiasts' want to make compulsory the arming of school staff. That compulsion is being promoted by no one. How did they get this idea? Instead, enthusiasts have proposed that those that are willing, able, and trained to have the option to be armed.
I see in different topics (not just related to firearms) how 'the tribes' marginalize the other side, often conflating freedom with compulsion, and they like to cite the very fringe advocates versus the main narrative or even any actual proposed legislation. It seems society would rather claim that 'others' are ridiculous versus engaging them as serious, moral, and intelligent people that happen to disagree with our own 'holy' views.
That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote and what gun advocates think.
I did not imply that the police, or anyone, should shoot people because they are dangerous. I was addressing the idea that "unarmed" is an indication of harmlessness.
Occupying militaries disarm the population where they go to reduce the ability to resist by the population. That is large scale. On a scale of individual interaction an unarmed person "can" be a deadly threat when in close proximity. It is the reason that when the police arrest you, they have you stand away from a wall or vehicle, legs spread, leaning on it with a hand on your back. Your feet are not under you, and you cannot move quickly, they can feel your sudden movement if you try. With the policeman's firearm in his holster, it is useless in unarmed combat. If you do try to resist/attack they try to throw you to the ground and kneel on you to pin you down. All of that is to prevent them from kicking their ass and killing them with their own gun.
An unarmed person is most often less deadly than an armed one, but my point was that unarmed cannot be taken to mean harmless. What are all of the other circumstances? I am in no way giving license to a police officer to shoot people who are no threat.
The last time I was stopped by the police I turned on my emergency blinkers to acknowledge him, slowed down and preceded to a spot where he didn't have to worry about getting hit by a car. While he was stopped behind me checking my license plate out, and me, I rolled down my window, got my driver's license, vehicle registration, insurance card and firearms permit out and had them in my hand with both wrists on top of my steering wheel when he approached. After handing them to him my wrists went back on top of my steering wheel to keep my hands in plain view. Being white is not immunity from being killed by a policeman who feels threatened.
He asked if I had a firearm with me. He knew I had a firearm permit before he approached my car since that showed up when he looked me up. I normally don't, but on that day I did. I told him that I did but it was inaccessible without me opening the door. If he wanted to see it I would tell him how, but I preferred to not touch it in his presence. He told me that it wasn't necessary for him to see it. I am extreme in insuring that I give a police officer no reason to "perceive" me to be a threat because he will act upon his perceptions. Like you, I am polite. I am mystified by people who give cops a blast of shit and expect a good result.
As for gun advocates thinking that the unarmed are the truly dangerous people, Zeus on Olympus! That is breathtakingly beyond hyperbole and disappointing.
I wasn't talking about you at all. I was referring to people like Palin and Boebert who say nonsense like unarmed people are more dangerous than armed people.
No denying that I disagree with you pretty starkly on most gun matters but I've never gone low about it.
Speaking of being sheltered from facts - "killing unarmed people" - the myth that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous. The issue is viable threat, thus unarmed people in custody are shackled.
And there is a wild conviction among gun advocates that the unarmed are the truly dangerous people, which is psychotic of course, and based on a lip-curling contempt for "gun-free zones" and the conviction that arming people in defense is the answer (it means more gun sales) instead of what we all know to be the solution: get rid of the guns.
I am starting a new and only loosely related topic about tribal perceptions about access to guns turned from one of freedom to compulsion. I am mystified at how persistently 'anti-gunners' I talk with claim that 'gun enthusiasts' want to make compulsory the arming of school staff. That compulsion is being promoted by no one. How did they get this idea? Instead, enthusiasts have proposed that those that are willing, able, and trained to have the option to be armed.
I see in different topics (not just related to firearms) how 'the tribes' marginalize the other side, often conflating freedom with compulsion, and they like to cite the very fringe advocates versus the main narrative or even any actual proposed legislation. It seems society would rather claim that 'others' are ridiculous versus engaging them as serious, moral, and intelligent people that happen to disagree with our own 'holy' views.
That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote and what gun advocates think.
I did not imply that the police, or anyone, should shoot people because they are dangerous. I was addressing the idea that "unarmed" is an indication of harmlessness.
Occupying militaries disarm the population where they go to reduce the ability to resist by the population. That is large scale. On a scale of individual interaction an unarmed person "can" be a deadly threat when in close proximity. It is the reason that when the police arrest you, they have you stand away from a wall or vehicle, legs spread, leaning on it with a hand on your back. Your feet are not under you, and you cannot move quickly, they can feel your sudden movement if you try. With the policeman's firearm in his holster, it is useless in unarmed combat. If you do try to resist/attack they try to throw you to the ground and kneel on you to pin you down. All of that is to prevent them from kicking their ass and killing them with their own gun.
An unarmed person is most often less deadly than an armed one, but my point was that unarmed cannot be taken to mean harmless. What are all of the other circumstances? I am in no way giving license to a police officer to shoot people who are no threat.
The last time I was stopped by the police I turned on my emergency blinkers to acknowledge him, slowed down and preceded to a spot where he didn't have to worry about getting hit by a car. While he was stopped behind me checking my license plate out, and me, I rolled down my window, got my driver's license, vehicle registration, insurance card and firearms permit out and had them in my hand with both wrists on top of my steering wheel when he approached. After handing them to him my wrists went back on top of my steering wheel to keep my hands in plain view. Being white is not immunity from being killed by a policeman who feels threatened.
He asked if I had a firearm with me. He knew I had a firearm permit before he approached my car since that showed up when he looked me up. I normally don't, but on that day I did. I told him that I did but it was inaccessible without me opening the door. If he wanted to see it I would tell him how, but I preferred to not touch it in his presence. He told me that it wasn't necessary for him to see it. I am extreme in insuring that I give a police officer no reason to "perceive" me to be a threat because he will act upon his perceptions. Like you, I am polite. I am mystified by people who give cops a blast of shit and expect a good result.
As for gun advocates thinking that the unarmed are the truly dangerous people, Zeus on Olympus! That is breathtakingly beyond hyperbole and disappointing.
I wasn't talking about you at all. I was referring to people like Palin and Boebert who say nonsense like unarmed people are more dangerous than armed people.
No denying that I disagree with you pretty starkly on most gun matters but I've never gone low about it.
And I expect us to maintain friendship in spite of the things we disagree about. I do know that you don't put me in the radical tribe.