Rest in power, comrade. What does Zig Forums think of this? Is America a cesspool of toxic masculinity and gun porn culture? Gun deaths are only a fraction of the fatalities due to alcohol, tobacco, or BIG PHARMA™ but, nobody talks about that. Is disarming the workers the slippery slope? First you are shot for owning a gun. Then it's a knife. Then it's any pointy object. Then it's balling your fist. Eventually, your own words and thoughts? I've seen some say that words = violence in current year. This sets a scary precedence because someday, force may be justified simply because of speech. How many inches do you give to the bourgeoisie to allow their miles? Discuss.
Go cut yourself instead, no one uses "Edgy" outside of redditors and children trying to act better than adults.
I actually side with the cops on this one. The dude pulled out his gun first.
I'm sorry, but is there some kind of chivalry code people need to follow before shooting policemen? Do we need to issue challenge, ensure that police gets a good chance to shoot at us, that we are not outgunning, nor outnumbering them?
You sound reactionary as fuck. This is not some "fair" competition. Neither side follows rules and either would use all powers, all dirty tricks to subjugate and/or destroy the other one.
P.s. note that I am using word "reactionary" correctly here (unlike in overwhelming majority of cases when people just label everything they don't like as "reactionary").
Was this guy even a radical or anything though? It didn't seem like he initially had any intent to shoot the cops. It looks to me like he panicked and pulled the gun. Guns don't magically imbue a person with operator skills. If it's you on the ground limply pulling a pistol vs a couple of trained cops with guns, you're gonna get rolled.
The weird part is it seemed like he drew because he was so afraid of being arrested? Arresting him looked like bullshit, but they weren't using anything close to lethal force. There was a time when any decent activist expected to get arrested. Looking at his options in this scenario, pulling the gun was pretty much the worst choice he could have made, especially since he waited to do it when he was in the worst position to actually use the thing.
RIP and fuck the police but this is kind of like lambasting people who use land mines after a drunk idiot deliberately steps on one to see what happens. You're not wrong but are you seriously going to overlook the victim's stupid behavior that led to a preventable result?
I think the topic had changed. What exactly are we discussing now? Inefficiency at shooting police first, or being terrified of police?
I can't accuse someone of being untrained. Nor can I fault people for being terrified of police. Especially, American police: - it is being increasingly militarized - it consistently uses excessive violence (and it uses it often), - attitude of mass-media to the victims of police cannot be called anything but open "hate speech", - policemen themselves demonstrate behaviour and mentality similar to the ones gangsters have, they just avoid punishment for their crimes and can use justice system to make people end up in prison (or dead) for personal reasons
Drawing gun at police today is perfectly natural response. They are becoming indistinguishable from legal mafia.
Will you fault a man for freaking and resorting to violence when mafia attempts to kidnap him? Will you tell that he should've surrendered, as they might've not killed him later? No. This might've not been the smartest move, but it is reasonable move. The same logic applies here. Sure, the dude freaked out. But he had a right to freak out.
Also, it is fucking rich that I ended up educating anarchist on why police aren't good guys.
Where did I say the police are good guys? I said that having a gun and trying to use it despite not being able to do it effectively is predictably going to get you killed. What would your response be to the situation if the cops were replaced with NKVD?
…I mean, there's that entire first sentence they typed. This whole thread was created as a far-right bootlicking shitshow. There is no evidence, for instance, that a male presenting male who impregnated a female is trans, nor is there any legitimacy to the notion that just shooting folks that you think are trans is somehow a good idea. But, the thread is that and cop bootlicking. The evidence suggests to me that the call by the school was a hoax in support of a premeditated murder attempt.
I mean, his job was legal aid to anarchist prisoners… ~shrug~ In any case, FTP, right or wrong.
OP could've just said "I suck dicks" and avoided this mess
I doubt the cops would have shot him. If he was black I honestly wouldn't side with the cops. But in this example the cops were probably acting in self defence.
…but then you realize that some middle school employee made a hoax call entirely to set up this - premeditated - murder at the same time the IWW is getting attacked about 100 kilometers north.
Are you going to post a link then?
Because I can give you a dozen links reporting that this was a ordinary issue about child custody. I've known people who have had probables with dads kidnapping kids at schools from their ex-wifes, so this stuff isn't uncommon.
That guy is not only the epitome of the radlib cancer that killed the left, but he threatened with his firearm first. He deserved it for both reasons.
Why the fuck were the police even called?
It was some custody thing. This is like pulling a gun when a cop stops you for a bad tail light.
The only thing he did wrong was not actually shooting any cops. What a wasted life!
This. FINALLY a response that isn't just police bootlicking.
The guy is still retarded for pulling the gun out first. Maybe you are right and that this is a set up but why wait for your target to get his gun out first whilst you are already arresting him? It is the worst way of setting up a homicide. It seems far more likely that the cops were out to arrest him rather than shoot him.
not gonna feel too much sympathy for a guy who thought his own life was disposable. This is like a black guy being shot while wearing a "white lives matter" shirt. Yeah we need to do something about the police state but somebody who thinks that being shot by police is part of "male privilege" is not the guy I'm going to care about. Plus looks like he pulled the gun first so it's his fault anyway.
Guns are not the problem, people are. Remove all the guns and people will just find other ways to kill each other. But, what is the true purpose of disarming the populace? Simple; if the populace has no way to defend itself against a totalitarian government then that government has the power to force the people to do whatever that government wants them to do. Removing guns is one of the steps necessary in establishing a totalitarian state. This is simple, undeniable logic and common sense.
How interesting that you make a post about the race and gender industry in America.
You shouldn't always believe everything your mother tells you.
Sorry but who took the guns?
Look up gun laws in China under Mao and Cuban gun laws dumbfuck. They are extremely strict for private possession. lmao
So we're down from "every Marxist regime" to two countries that were in the middle of civil wars. Grab those goalposts, and run nigga, run!
USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, GDR, Commie Poland, Zimbabwe and the rest of the failed ex-marxist African shitholes. All had extremely strict gun laws and the ones that still exist still have strict gun laws. Nobody cares. The only thing that matters is the laws pertaining to private ownership independent of any military duty. Meanwhile Hitler made gun laws much laxer, I've never seen a commieCapitalist do the same.
If you have your own special snowflake definition of capitalism that conveniently excludes the Nazi regime then you're too beyond reasoning with. I'll entertain your debate if you're reasonable but not I'm not going to waste any more time with your asinine opinions if you don't even understand what capitalism is.
Cite the laws regarding private possession. Not military related. Both of these nations are and were in the midst of a war. Of course they wouldn't grab the guns because they need them to fight a war. Catalonia only existed for three years and never during a stable era to govern itself and pass domestic policies, so to claim this is a pro-gun example is misleading. That's like saying Vietnam was pro-gun because the vietcong and other villagers were armed to fight the opposing side in a civil war, yet if you were to look at Vietnamese gun laws after, they are still extremely strict. Same with Rojava, again it's in the midst of a war.
kek, where exactly do you start here?
a 30 year old student, in other words a parasite on the back of the working class, good riddance (or maybe it says former student idk its 5 am here and i didnt sleep fuck you) i bet he was a net tax leech and not a contributor so its good he died, he can no longer oppress the working class if you are in a conversation with the police officers, you are supposed to inform them you are conceal carrying if you are attacking cops with a side arm, you are supposed to ambush them gun in hand and with a distance shorter than 50 meters in an open area where they cant make effective use of cover
he failed at both talking to and attacking the cops this fucking guy is a walking failure, society is measurably better off without him no? not even to mention the liberal shirt and being man handled like he never did a day of manual labor in his life
First one actually existed, second one: basques have a more unique identity, Catalonians are just Spanish frogs, third, nonexistent, parasites.
I'm not defending an antifa/cia member here but apparently being a 30 year old who would otherwise be sucking dick for cash if he didn't get benefits is somehow bad.
A hedge fund manager pays more taxes than a factory worker, but that doesn't mean that the factory worker provides less value to society. You should be careful when you frame arguments around taxes, many workers in the UK are net liabilities on the state yet their employers are often generating millions of pounds worth of revenue.
I haven't a clue where to find pre-1991 Albanian sources on law, at least in English. So unfortunately I can't be specific. However, Hoxha makes a number of comments in his works, which is further detailed in the country guide 'Albania Defiant', about how well armed Albanian civilians are. More to the point, personal possession of firearms is a historic part of Albanian culture and was considered as such under the Hoxha period. If there were "draconian gun laws" in Albania at this time; how did so many houses own guns and were trained with such to defend Albania from Yugoslav attack? You find a similar situation in EZLN controlled parts of Chiapas where in each village milicianos are a group of young men who own guns and use such if a problem arises, even though there is no active war in the region. In my defence, these countries didn't/don't technically have anti-gun laws, contrary to your point. Except the Viet Cong didn't represent North Vietnam or even represented a country at all and thus didn't pass domestic policy. Contrary to your claim on Anarchist Catalonia, they did govern themselves and pass a number of domestic polices including the distribution of weapons to civilians. It's not misleading to say that they were pro-gun (I never claimed that but okay) considering they took measures to increase gun possession.
So essentially paperweights? The ammunition was kept at bunkers. Sure Hoxha gave weapons to the citizens, but you couldn't keep ammo at home and its only purpose was military-related. It has nothing to do with the individual freedom to own arms.
I explictly said that the same logic in claiming Rojava and Catalonia were pro-gun because they armed people to fight a civil war the same as claiming Vietnam was pro-gun because villagers were armed to fight the Americans. It is misleading and guns in the context of military duty have nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
When someone supports gun rights, it is almost always supporting the right of gun ownership in a private individual context. Not one that is related to military duty. I have yet to see an example of a Marxist nation past and present that has had a laissez-faire attitude towards guns regarding private ownership independent of any military context. When Marx talked about arming the workers, he meant in a collective sense for the purpose of a violent revolution, not gun ownership in a private individual context. Lenin said the same thing in his writing before the revolution, that all the workers had to be armed and worker militias should be formed. What did the Soviets do after the revolution and what were the laws they implemented regarding private ownership and acquistion of arms? I think you know perfectly well the answer to that question.
I didn't say that Albanian gun ownership was limited to the government policy on distributed weapons. Even before Hoxha there was a significant gun culture. The source you cite (which unfortunately I can not find by itself) just states that the government didn't issue ammunition, not that ammunition wasn't available. My central point is that the ppeople's republic of Albania didn't limit the previous culture of gun ownership already in place in Albania.
I refer you to my point on the EZLN. Gun ownership is not hindered in Zapatisa Chiapas in a place that lacks an active military conflict and has already set in place domestic laws. If the EZLN has put in place laws that stops illegal logging and other crimes; why haven't they taken away the guns yet?
My point with Albania is that you have not provided a source as to what the laws on guns regarding private ownership was. My question is how well can the EZLN can enforce domestic policies? But even then, I'll give you the Zaptatistas.
This is still just one example. With regards to gun rights in Latin America, it was Chavez who banned the guns in Venezuela and the socialists in Brazil who passed extremely strict laws that were loosened by Bolsanaro.