Wow, way to be completely out of touch with reality. You really think the police should use more force? Hell why not use some hellfire missiles on 'em, right?

I think you're out of touch with reality. Most people do not support theft and destruction and violence. Do you?

When people illegally congregate without appropriate permits for protest, or in violation of curfews, or against peaceful orders to disperse, more action must be taken. When requests to stop looting and destruction of property are ignored, more action must be taken. Your reply makes me think you just want anarchy on the streets to be permitted without any deterrent.

Sorry, but most people do not want that. Most protesters also do not want that. And so yes, the police do need to take more definitive action when other methods have failed. This isn't a radical proposal, it is common sense.

> the police do need to take more definitive action when other methods have failed.

Apply this logic to the protesters. There have been many examples of attempts at change without violence. I don’t like this, but I see why it is happening.

Where was the order to disperse in Seattle? It definitely was not announced on Saturday before the Seattle Police Department started attacking protestors.

Mayor Jenny Durkan didn't even send the emergency curfew alert much before 5pm. I received it at 5:04pm, and most people I talked to got it after 5pm.

Have you watched any of the actual live streams?

Protestors day one were hurling heavy rocks tens of yards at riot police as they stood. They are constantly being dehumanized - the protestors stand inches away and scream at police. All of this during a pandemic, by the way.

It's obscene to watch the media (CNN in particular) repeatedly claim that these nationwide protests are peaceful, when the police are universally yelled at, belittled, threatened, and dehumanized while stoically standing, and almost all of these riots seem to be accompanied by late night looting. Not to mention, I've repeat fly witnessed protestors belittle police for being black, female, and/or physically small.

I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons for protestors to be angry, only pointing out that this notion that police are just antagonizing innocent, peaceful protestors is pure propaganda.

Aside: that I have access to 20 first person perspectives from all sides of a historic event in real time, from the comfort of my home, is a testament to how far humanity has come.

There are multiple groups with different motives and actions. It will always be inaccurate to lump "protesters" together into one homogenous group when they are anything but.

Ironic, because I’m rather livid that local and national news are not airing the obvious clips of police brutality that are going around the country. Last night multiple people lost eyes to “rubber bullets” (baton rounds is more accurate) at peaceful protests, aiming at their heads.

I’ve also noticed that people who are comfortable using the destruction of property to justify the brutalizing of human lives have the unique ability to see looters before and after the clip began and ended, or perhaps just out of frame, or perhaps halfway across the city.

> citizens need semiautomatic rifles

How many do you plan to shoot?

Semiautomatic means it reloads automatically. A bolt action, manual-reload rifle would be useless against a mob, which was the stated threat profile.

You seem to be on a different thread from your parent.

I got from your parent "a semiautomatic rifle takes two hands to shoot, so how do you plan to shoot rifles?"

Good point. With your comment for perspective I am now laughing at my interpretation. :)

Yes, that was my thought process. I also don't own one but am definitely thinking about it now.

In a self defense situation who gets shot is up to the attackers.

You seem to misattribute perfect knowledge, control, aim, and rationality to a scared person with a gun.

edit: some examples of scared shooters acting out of fear without enough information shoot people who are not "intruders":

  - Connecticut teacher mistakenly kills son after neighbor reports robber [1]
  - Ohio Father Fatally Shoots Son He Mistook for Intruder: Police [2] 

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/connecticut-father-ki...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-father-fatally-sho...

So people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves because sometimes there are accidents? Should people be allowed to drive? After all, some people drive drunk. Should people even be allowed to go outside at all? After all, people get hit by meteors and lightning bolts.

> After all, some people drive drunk

In my example, your drunk driver would be the shooter, not my the shooting victim.

I'm very familiar with risk evaluation. This whole thread was because I was pointing out a big gap in your logic.

> In a self defense situation who gets shot is up to the attackers.

"Accidents happen" disproves this assertion.

These imperfect people trying to defend themselves are easy to avoid, you just don't break into their property so that doesn't really seem like much of an issue.

Well, we could have all citizens share the same rifle. Is that what you had in mind?

More realistically, a good engineer will always have a backup.

CA has the castle doctrine, and many states have stand your ground laws. Nobody plans to shoot anyone, for self defense it is used as a last resort when an intruder continues to threaten the occupant.

> Nobody plans to shoot anyone

So nobody has ever used a gun to commit first degree murder?

I don't think you've thought through what you're typing.

I read his comment not in an absolute sense, but that most reasonable people do not want to ever use their firearm against another human. But they may encounter a situation that forces them to, and that defending their property/loved ones using a firearm is their right.

That’s taken heavily out of context. Nobody plans to shoot someone when in a self-defense situation. Planning to use a gun to shoot someone is by definition a crime, and there is a burden of proof for that.

Yes and no.

I agree that you weren't talking about a 1st degree murder situation, but your wording is still sloppy and the idea you are conveying is inaccurate.

> Nobody plans to shoot someone when in a self-defense situation

Literally the only way your logic works is if you don't pick up a gun. If you pick up a gun, you are actively planning the possibility of a shoot.

Perhaps you are making a mental distinction between shooting a specific person versus shooting any person you find in your house?

> Planning to use a gun to shoot someone is by definition a crime, and there is a burden of proof for that.

I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!

> If you pick up a gun, you are actively planning the possibility of a shoot.

That is exactly what I stated earlier. Nobody is planning to shoot someone with malice aforethought in a self-defense scenario. As you say, they are planning for the possibility that they might shoot someone. Those are two very different things.

> I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!

It matters a lot in a legal context. If you state the assertion that “everyone who picks up a gun is planning to shoot someone”, then automatically everyone who ever picked up a gun is guilty of a very specific crime. The distinction matters a lot.