Yes. I think we're in "that ship has sailed" territory when it comes to gun names. It's like Kleenex: the trademark is pretty useless once everybody calls every brand of facial tissue Kleenex. An "assault rifle" is just "a rifle that holds more bullets than I think it should" to most people, apparently.
It’s completely nonsensical to me. Most gun crime involves handguns - they also come with high capacity magazines. They account for more than half of all mass shootings, rifles are a very distant second. The reason why should be obvious - rifles are huge and hard to conceal. That’s precisely why Texas puts more stringent requirements on handgun purchases than on rifle purchases, it’s literally common sense gun control. If a person is allowed to enter the premises of a “gun-free zone” with a rifle, that institution has failed at the very start. The rifles we’re discussing are not “assault rifles”, they’re just “black and scary” to people who don’t know anything about guns.
Because that’s technically not their job, as per a previously mentioned court ruling.
This is quite perplexing to me. You have armed police waiting outside of the school while a shooting is going on. Are they serious? I would morally object to an armed civilian waiting outside but the police??? How is there a gun control debate after this, what is this world turning into???
It’s just not their job to risk their life for you. It would be immoral to claim otherwise. You are right, it strengthens the self-defense argument.
I mean, you say that, but everybody generally likes to be alive and would prefer not to die. What are you going to tell the families of the dead police officers if you force them to put themselves in harm’s way, knowing that their entry point isn’t safe? The police takes out active shooters when the threat to the officer’s life is minimal - they use snipers, trick shooters to leave themselves open, trick them into releasing the hostages, so on and so forth - they don’t barge into a room knowing that they’ll immediately get shot. They’re waiting for a shooter to make some kind of mistake before they make a move. The superman myth just isn’t true, and heroics often times cause more harm than good. It’s just the way it is - real life isn’t a Chuck Norris film. Very few officers will go beyond the call of duty and risk life and limb - that’s not their job. They’re not supposed to put themselves in danger.
Not really. If there is a functional society with culture and spirit, there could be a situation where a man who survived shamefully would rather be dead. Think of the Samurai.
That he died in honor.
Yes, the problem really is that the american society is so far gone that the idea of dying for it is completly foreign to the populs.
Every man should be in the position, that he sees intervining as his duty regardless of profession.
Ritual suicide is a barbaric way to resolve disputes.
You can’t eat honour, it doesn’t cook well. It doesn’t put the kids through school. Honour won’t walk the daughter down the aisle on her wedding day. This kind of romanticised mentality completely removes the human element. Cops are just people, they’re not going to die for you.
You do it then.
Intervening is good. Foolishly running into gunfire is pure stupidity. It’s very honourable to risk your life on behalf of somebody else, but you have to do that with your brain, not with your heart, otherwise you just end up with more bodies and more grieving families. Shoving meat through the one door to the classroom and letting bodies pile up until one of them gets a clean shot in is not police work, it’s suicide.
The japanese back then were far more cultured then the US today. It was not meant to resolve disputes. It was for the Samurai to regain honor, it was an opportunity.
It should. We should have a society where honour is rewarded. Unfortunatly merchants have higher status, what a joke.
I would.
Honorable man would have found a way I am sure.
Despite the fact that you do engage in it?
I do, but again, you're missing the point. The point is the ridiculous complexity required to sell tacos and the relative ease of buying guns, just like the Texas shooter this thread refers to did a couple days before the event.
Wrong. Barriers do exist. Look at the arsenal one.
Then what is their job? Search the pockets of teens for cannabis but be grown-ass useless p****s when duty calls? Protect and Serve, not "protect and be useless".
This reminds me of the criticism the officers were facing for not letting the parents storm into the school. What happens when those parents are reckless and get shot or taken hostage by the shooter, instead of saving their children? The officers will get the blame for letting stupid people into the building who got themselves killed. There is a lot of misplaced moral outrage over the police stopping mothers from rescuing their kids, but keeping stupid members of the public from getting themselves killed is a bigger part of a policeman's job description than valiantly diving into a hail of bullets to rescue children. Bold displays of heroism are how policing works in the movies, not real life.
Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.
@
Sonic Angel Knight:
@
K3Nv2:
