Federal troops helping suppress protests in Portland OR

[Testy Calibrate]

If he really is of a mind to start disappearing his political opponents right off the street. I think he'll find that the Democrats are, in general, more heavily armed than the folks on the Right quite realize. I know quite a few new gun owners of late.

He'll find the democrats are more heavily armed than the MAGAs think - and have been for a very long time. They just aren't the sort to brandish for the feels. They ACTUALLY own for actual protection, sport or hunting. Not to make their penises bigger.

Meh. I think dem gun ownership is lower than rep gun ownership. I read that once on the internet anyway. Maybe things have changed. I haven't owned a gun in decades. A lot of people I know don't own guns. Anecdotes are not super useful i guess but it isn't a thing here in pdx that I know of anyway.

 

[repoman]

And domestic disputes seem to be what they want to send social workers to after defunding police.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

And domestic disputes seem to be what they want to send social workers to after defunding police.

That's a pretty broad brush regarding "they".

It's also a meaningless stat because it doesn't start with any kind of analysis of domestic disturbance calls.

The issue here for me is that stats like this are being used to paint the issues as all or none and that just isn't how society works. I am not of the opinion that defunding is the best way to fix the systemic problems. It doesn't address accountability afaict. But even so, if there is a conversation about the appropriate use of police, that conversation is not improved by mixing up statistics. It is improved by debating first principles. It seems like broad agreement would be easy if the question was, should we send unarmed people into situations that have a high potential for violence? The answer that agreement is likely to be reached on is no.

At that point, the unglamorous job of analyzing actual cases and generalizing to arrive at the features of a situation that would trigger which response could begin. As it stands, the pro cop propaganda is working hard to make that process impossible.

 

[skepticalbip]

I do know a few die-hard Democrats who were avid anti-gun advocates who recently bought fire arms. However, it wasn't to go to war with Republicans. The defund the police movement and riots scared the shit out of them and they want to be able to defend themselves in case the police can't show up to defend them. Reality is that personal security is much more important to most people than political partisanship.

ETA:
It just struck me that with previously anti-gun people buying guns for personal security that politicians running on a gun control platform may have lost some of their support.

 

[Politesse]

If he really is of a mind to start disappearing his political opponents right off the street. I think he'll find that the Democrats are, in general, more heavily armed than the folks on the Right quite realize. I know quite a few new gun owners of late.

He'll find the democrats are more heavily armed than the MAGAs think - and have been for a very long time. They just aren't the sort to brandish for the feels. They ACTUALLY own for actual protection, sport or hunting. Not to make their penises bigger.

Meh. I think dem gun ownership is lower than rep gun ownership. I read that once on the internet anyway. Maybe things have changed. I haven't owned a gun in decades. A lot of people I know don't own guns. Anecdotes are not super useful i guess but it isn't a thing here in pdx that I know of anyway.

Likely. I don't know as many Democrats who stockpile Idaho-style. But I mean, if the idea is that we will simply trot into the Xinjiang-style reeducation camps* without resistance, I don't think that's the case.

* Not a conspiracy theory; not only are the camps real, our former ambassador to the UN has confirmed that they have been overtly endorsed by both Republican presidents who knew about them, so it's not like they haven't considered the virtues and downsides of such a strategy.

 

[Gun Nut]

I have a simplistic solution to a complex problem, I think... Statistically, the vast majority of police NEVER fire their weapon in the line of duty, much less kill someone. Those Police officers that have been in the unfortunate position where they had to fire their weapon (questionably or not) have only fired their weapon one time in their career, and a significant percentage of those choose to retire as a result of that incident. The remaining percentage of police that have fired their weapon in the line of duty more than once in their career is a fractional percentage.
So I propose that once a cop fires his weapon in the line of duty, he is forced to retire (and may or may not receive any retirement benefits, inline with existing policies on tenure at the time of retiring).
So, a cop shall have immunity for an alleged wrongful death in the line of duty, to a reasonable extent, however taking the course of action of firing your weapon is the end of your career no matter what the circumstance. Don't want to lose your job? Find a better way to deescalate the situation than your sidearm... need your sidearm to feel safe in the job and want to keep your job? don't become a cop then, pussy.

 

[Politesse]

Reality is that personal security is much more important to most people than political partisanship.

Those categories are blending, though. If it's not safe to be on the street at all in a "Democrat city" without getting randomly arrested, political partisanship is making us personally insecure.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I have a simplistic solution to a complex problem, I think... Statistically, the vast majority of police NEVER fire their weapon in the line of duty, much less kill someone. Those Police officers that have been in the unfortunate position where they had to fire their weapon (questionably or not) have only fired their weapon one time in their career, and a significant percentage of those choose to retire as a result of that incident. The remaining percentage of police that have fired their weapon in the line of duty more than once in their career is a fractional percentage.
So I propose that once a cop fires his weapon in the line of duty, he is forced to retire (and may or may not receive any retirement benefits, inline with existing policies on tenure at the time of retiring).
So, a cop shall have immunity for an alleged wrongful death in the line of duty, to a reasonable extent, however taking the course of action of firing your weapon is the end of your career no matter what the circumstance. Don't want to lose your job? Find a better way to deescalate the situation than your sidearm... need your sidearm to feel safe in the job and want to keep your job? don't become a cop then, pussy.

Yikes. I agree that it's very rare for a police office to pull their weapon. However, if my mom were being threatened by an asshole, I'd rather not have a police officer's career having an effect on whether or not to put the asshole down or not. I'd rather just have a well compensated, well trained, cool headed officer who can make the correct decision on what course of action to take, and not worry about her golden watch in retirement.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have a simplistic solution to a complex problem, I think... Statistically, the vast majority of police NEVER fire their weapon in the line of duty, much less kill someone. Those Police officers that have been in the unfortunate position where they had to fire their weapon (questionably or not) have only fired their weapon one time in their career, and a significant percentage of those choose to retire as a result of that incident. The remaining percentage of police that have fired their weapon in the line of duty more than once in their career is a fractional percentage.
So I propose that once a cop fires his weapon in the line of duty, he is forced to retire (and may or may not receive any retirement benefits, inline with existing policies on tenure at the time of retiring).
So, a cop shall have immunity for an alleged wrongful death in the line of duty, to a reasonable extent, however taking the course of action of firing your weapon is the end of your career no matter what the circumstance. Don't want to lose your job? Find a better way to deescalate the situation than your sidearm... need your sidearm to feel safe in the job and want to keep your job? don't become a cop then, pussy.

Uh, no. How about just holding cops to the same standard as everyone else when they use deadly force.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I have a simplistic solution to a complex problem, I think... Statistically, the vast majority of police NEVER fire their weapon in the line of duty, much less kill someone. Those Police officers that have been in the unfortunate position where they had to fire their weapon (questionably or not) have only fired their weapon one time in their career, and a significant percentage of those choose to retire as a result of that incident. The remaining percentage of police that have fired their weapon in the line of duty more than once in their career is a fractional percentage.
So I propose that once a cop fires his weapon in the line of duty, he is forced to retire (and may or may not receive any retirement benefits, inline with existing policies on tenure at the time of retiring).
So, a cop shall have immunity for an alleged wrongful death in the line of duty, to a reasonable extent, however taking the course of action of firing your weapon is the end of your career no matter what the circumstance. Don't want to lose your job? Find a better way to deescalate the situation than your sidearm... need your sidearm to feel safe in the job and want to keep your job? don't become a cop then, pussy.

Uh, no. How about just holding cops to the same standard as everyone else when they use deadly force.

I'm hoping that you understand that the cop who killed Floyd isn't enjoying a vacation from work at a club med.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have a simplistic solution to a complex problem, I think... Statistically, the vast majority of police NEVER fire their weapon in the line of duty, much less kill someone. Those Police officers that have been in the unfortunate position where they had to fire their weapon (questionably or not) have only fired their weapon one time in their career, and a significant percentage of those choose to retire as a result of that incident. The remaining percentage of police that have fired their weapon in the line of duty more than once in their career is a fractional percentage.
So I propose that once a cop fires his weapon in the line of duty, he is forced to retire (and may or may not receive any retirement benefits, inline with existing policies on tenure at the time of retiring).
So, a cop shall have immunity for an alleged wrongful death in the line of duty, to a reasonable extent, however taking the course of action of firing your weapon is the end of your career no matter what the circumstance. Don't want to lose your job? Find a better way to deescalate the situation than your sidearm... need your sidearm to feel safe in the job and want to keep your job? don't become a cop then, pussy.

Uh, no. How about just holding cops to the same standard as everyone else when they use deadly force.

I'm hoping that you understand that the cop who killed Floyd isn't enjoying a vacation from work at a club med.

I was making no comment on any individual cop, I was merely responding to the idea proposed by Gun Nut, which I hope was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You believe their BS story about the 'mob'? The video(s) (who you gonna believe, me, or your lyin eyes?) clearly show the protesters in the street, which is public property.

It isn't a public street. It was a private road and the mob broke down an iron gate across it to get into the property.

The protesters did not break the gate, at least not prior to Mr/Mrs Karen came out.

I'm sorry for using large text, but this is driving me up the fucking wall! This keeps getting claimed over and over and it is false. When it was broken, by whom, I have no clue, but the gate was NOT broken prior to gun happy assholes pointing guns at protesters walls past their house. The video below proves this.

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065

 

[Angry Floof]

I do know a few die-hard Democrats who were avid anti-gun advocates who recently bought fire arms. However, it wasn't to go to war with Republicans. The defund the police movement and riots scared the shit out of them and they want to be able to defend themselves in case the police can't show up to defend them. Reality is that personal security is much more important to most people than political partisanship.

ETA:
It just struck me that with previously anti-gun people buying guns for personal security that politicians running on a gun control platform may have lost some of their support.

Can you give us an example of a Dem who is buying firearms to protect themselves from the right wing fear fantasy of black people invading their homes?

 

[skepticalbip]

I do know a few die-hard Democrats who were avid anti-gun advocates who recently bought fire arms. However, it wasn't to go to war with Republicans. The defund the police movement and riots scared the shit out of them and they want to be able to defend themselves in case the police can't show up to defend them. Reality is that personal security is much more important to most people than political partisanship.

ETA:
It just struck me that with previously anti-gun people buying guns for personal security that politicians running on a gun control platform may have lost some of their support.

Can you give us an example of a Dem who is buying firearms to protect themselves from the right wing fear fantasy of black people invading their homes?

Aside from your strawman form of question, you would not know the now ex-gun control advocate Democrats that I know who bought weapons if I named them and I wouldn't out them anyway. They are still Democrats but no longer anti-gun. Their fear has nothing to do with "black people invading their homes". Their fear is the multi-racial radicals (overwhelmingly white) who are burning shops and destroying property, seeing the police not controlling the destruction, and the call to reduce the police forces that they had relied on to respond if they ever had to call.

 

[Angry Floof]

I do know a few die-hard Democrats who were avid anti-gun advocates who recently bought fire arms. However, it wasn't to go to war with Republicans. The defund the police movement and riots scared the shit out of them and they want to be able to defend themselves in case the police can't show up to defend them. Reality is that personal security is much more important to most people than political partisanship.

ETA:
It just struck me that with previously anti-gun people buying guns for personal security that politicians running on a gun control platform may have lost some of their support.

Can you give us an example of a Dem who is buying firearms to protect themselves from the right wing fear fantasy of black people invading their homes?

Aside from your strawman form of question, you would not know the now ex-gun control advocate Democrats that I know who bought weapons if I named them and I wouldn't out them anyway. They are still Democrats but no longer anti-gun. Their fear has nothing to do with "black people invading their homes". Their fear is the multi-racial radicals (overwhelmingly white) who are burning shops, seeing the police not controlling the destruction, and the call to reduce the police forces that they had relied on to respond if they ever had to call.

Again, that is a right wing fantasy. No "die hard Democrat" would be spending much time exposed to such propaganda, much less allowing it to hijack their animal brain and turn off their frontal lobes to that extent. They are more likely afraid of the police and Trump's federal thugs, if they're truly afraid of anything regarding wanton violence in our country.

It really sounds like you're just making stuff up or at the very least exaggerating to make it appear that right wing fear mongering is a reality that even "die hard Democrats" would buy into it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Aside from your strawman form of question, you would not know the now ex-gun control advocate Democrats that I know who bought weapons if I named them and I wouldn't out them anyway. They are still Democrats but no longer anti-gun. Their fear has nothing to do with "black people invading their homes". Their fear is the multi-racial radicals (overwhelmingly white) who are burning shops, seeing the police not controlling the destruction, and the call to reduce the police forces that they had relied on to respond if they ever had to call.

Again, that is a right wing fantasy. No "die hard Democrat" would be spending much time exposed to such propaganda, much less allowing it to hijack their animal brain and turn off their frontal lobes to that extent. They are more likely afraid of the police and Trump's federal thugs, if they're truly afraid of anything regarding wanton violence in our country.

It really sounds like you're just making stuff up or at the very least exaggerating to make it appear that right wing fear mongering is a reality that even "die hard Democrats" would buy into it.

You are too warped by ideology to know how most of the world lives. Right-wingnuts and left-wingnuts are the most vociferous so get most news coverage, but even combined, are a minority of the American people. Most real people (dem., rep., and lib.) get along fine, calmly discuss politics, and accept each other's political leanings.

Your "us vs. them" mentality is sick.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Aside from your strawman form of question, you would not know the now ex-gun control advocate Democrats that I know who bought weapons if I named them and I wouldn't out them anyway. They are still Democrats but no longer anti-gun. Their fear has nothing to do with "black people invading their homes". Their fear is the multi-racial radicals (overwhelmingly white) who are burning shops, seeing the police not controlling the destruction, and the call to reduce the police forces that they had relied on to respond if they ever had to call.

Again, that is a right wing fantasy. No "die hard Democrat" would be spending much time exposed to such propaganda, much less allowing it to hijack their animal brain and turn off their frontal lobes to that extent. They are more likely afraid of the police and Trump's federal thugs, if they're truly afraid of anything regarding wanton violence in our country.

It really sounds like you're just making stuff up or at the very least exaggerating to make it appear that right wing fear mongering is a reality that even "die hard Democrats" would buy into it.

You are too warped by ideology to know how most of the world lives. Right-wingnuts and left-wingnuts are the most vociferous so get most news coverage, but even combined, are a minority of the American people. Most real people (dem., rep., and lib.) get along fine, calmly discuss politics, and accept each other's political leanings.

Your "us vs. them" mentality is sick.

ROFL. Irony meters destroyed.

Your characterization of left wing/dem people as 'anti-gun' is a tell. Very few dems are anti-gun. Most are actually pro-well regulated guns. It's that well regulated that gets translated into anti newspeak. So congrats, you're parroting the right wing talking points perfectly.

But yeah, go ahead and accuse Angry Floof of being 'us vs. them.'

I'm actually, for the first time in my life, considering getting a handgun and taking the conceal carry class.
Not to protect me from black people, but from cops/militia/right wingers.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You believe their BS story about the 'mob'? The video(s) (who you gonna believe, me, or your lyin eyes?) clearly show the protesters in the street, which is public property.

It isn't a public street. It was a private road and the mob broke down an iron gate across it to get into the property.

The protesters did not break the gate, at least not prior to Mr/Mrs Karen came out.

I'm sorry for using large text, but this is driving me up the fucking wall! This keeps getting claimed over and over and it is false. When it was broken, by whom, I have no clue, but the gate was NOT broken prior to gun happy assholes pointing guns at protesters walls past their house. The video below proves this.

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065

Maybe he has you on ignore.

That's why I suggested maybe skeptical was a inappropriate part of his moniker.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are too warped by ideology to know how most of the world lives. Right-wingnuts and left-wingnuts are the most vociferous so get most news coverage, but even combined, are a minority of the American people. Most real people (dem., rep., and lib.) get along fine, calmly discuss politics, and accept each other's political leanings.

Your "us vs. them" mentality is sick.

ROFL. Irony meters destroyed.

Your characterization of left wing/dem people as 'anti-gun' is a tell.

You apparently read what you want into posts. I didn't make a generalized characterization. I said that the ones I was referencing were anti-gun, the reason I was surprised they armed themselves. I also have a dem friend that has owned an arsenal as long as I have known him. But if you want a generalization, in general the gun control movement is more supported by dems than reps. "In general" certainly doesn't mean "all".

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Where gun control largely means reasonable regulations and making military style assault weapons illegal.

However, I live in Portland and the only group I am afraid of is the police in the context of the protests. The news you hear is wrong. Unless you are waving a nazi flag, you are safe anywhere in town from protesters. When 50,000 people are in a group because they are pissed off at fascism, it definitely isn't a good place to go to advertise fascism but that is not an issue of America going to hell and discourse ending, it's an example of the fact that fascism is a hateful ideology and the Americans who are marching are marching because fascism is a real threat to America right now.