yeah it's definitely because he hates the islams and also obama

and da jooz

Tim Pool should be replaced with Tim Cool ™, radicool far-left verified twitter jurno. Prove me wrong ☕

Jim Cool is better

Yeah, he needs to upload more skateboarding. He can just skateboard while discussing he news so he doesn't alienate his old audience

was this a cover up?
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/

Wasnt there another city that was doing the same thing?

Withholding videos of crimes becuase they feared it would make people racist

ive heard that kinda thingcoming out of europe but this is the only time ive heard of it here

I heard about it a while ago

but i feel like this is a bigger story than anyone is giving it credit for, a 50+ person train robbery

that should have been a huuuuge story

Should be... But it's California where such thing is legal

Why do you think they lowered so many felonies to misdemeanors, such as identity theft.

hey @Timcast im putting a huge massive argument here for you because ive been watching your podcast today and i guess i got a bit triggered by a pretty insignifigant tangent that gets brought up in it about race as a social construct. i know it was brought up by your guest and it wasent the point of the video so its ok that you didint go to far into it but in my hope to keep you well informed on topics im going to fill you in on some key information that really doesent support that idea. now personally regardless of all this information i agree with you that race should not mean much for federal or even state policy, id really only ever argue for policys around race to be used in the medical field or education where these distinct differences between us manifest in a different that disparages groups who are held to the same standard as everyone else.

to begin national geographic isint a reliable source of scientific information anymore, it hasent been for 20 years, but beyond there there are huge huge problems with the assertion that theres no way to differentiate between race. phenotypically there is as pointed out in your podcast, but also genetically its very well studied and being even more studied now that race is determined by genes because ALL phenotypical characteristics of an organism without physical damage are determined genetically. not only that but phenotypical differences discribe more than just your macroscopic differences of skin color, height, hair, ect. phenotypical differences discribe how your body functions down to a cellular level which manifest behavural and medical differences between distinct population groups. lactose tolerence, wet/dry earwax, countless genetic disorders are all traits of a certain genetic leniage which are manifested by a biology predetermined by your genes and those genes have to be different in order for some populations to manifest them while others do not. below are some articles that back this up which give information on the actual genetic study of different races if your interested, ive tl;drd the first one

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ahg.12251?author_access_token=f2zin36v2YrNgFfKQHvgrota6bR2k8jH0KrdpFOxC67dd_uyeReVHbWDVkzMFxMBys8p0aqqN3WAiGTxtRo6gBBWjAZjLoAV8v6t731-OKjHMC0WW8sU1rX8Ij8AmMm6

tdlr; this article is talking about something related to disease risk factors using thousands upon thousands of genomes to catagorize that risk factor and then comparing that risk factor between the 3 big genetic groups of europeans, asians, and africans and finding that theres differences in the risk factors the wide array of genomes they studied between each of the population groups. basicly europeans having different disease risk factors than asians, and both having different risk factors than africans

more examples
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-depression-map-genes-culture-serotonin-and-a-side-of-pathogens/
and
more examples
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

this may also interest you if youd like to see some genetic information on inteligence predictibility https://twitter.com/antonioregalado/status/980846423670427648
and this video about how IQ actually is a thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_O758GJWKs

Yeah I didn't quite get how the assertion that phenotypes were real but there was no genetic component to race could be squared

But I also didn't have time to listen to the whole podcast. Was waiting til I got home

yeah the intro provoked me to watch the whole thing, you dont get a whole lot more from it after that but tim does seem a bit like it might be more than just a social construct

I think it's where we draw the line between one race or another that is often a social construct

i actually look at race more as an architecture of taxonomy more so than a social construct

it discribes the groups of historical isolation to specific geographic regions over a vast period of time where natural selection favored certain traits for survival over others that acts as the backdrop to the mechanism of the diversion of species into new species from a common ancestor

@Arch-Fiend

1) What is the definition of race in a biological context?
1a) Is it different than ethnicity?
2b) Is it the same as the colloquial term race
1c) What percentage of your gene do you need to be in order to be considered a member of that "race"? or are you a member of all races that you have genes from?

2) I have the gene for red hair, although it only manifests in co-dominance in my beard. This is evidence of my Irish ancestry and can be traced back to i believe the Nordic areas. Would this not make me a different race than most other Europeans?
2a) if so, would this not mean that i would not be a member of the "white race" (i.e. Germany-France-Britain area ancestry ) as typically laid out by those who usually care about race?

3) If we put this into context, the race they were talking about is that which is generally broken down into: Black, White, Asian, Jew, and sometimes Hispanic. Those all cover very different sizes of populations and varying sizes or geographical differences inside each subsets: i.e. all of Africa is black, all of Asia is Asian minus russia, jews come from a very specific area in the middle east, and white is all of europe + russia. So with this context, do those races actually exist on equal levels of a hierarchy? Or are they socially constructed by mix and matching various levels of the hierarchy to make up new arbitrary classifications?

lots of people have a misconception that all groups of people are derived from current african racial genetic groups but in actuality whats truly happened is that were all decendent from A african racial genetic group, 2 infact, one which seporated from africa at a much later point than the one that most of us are related to, and sense then the genome has evolved in many many different contexts including those present in africa so that we are more related to the genetic makeup groups commonly associated with certain geographys that at a later time had less migration into them by other humans due to the domination of teritory by the occuptation of human groups

@Grenade123 the socially constructed element of race is defined at where you choose to begin discribing where the race diverts from both its ancestors and its contemporarys. thus when you define a race its then your own choice to do so. were only able to describe different species because different species can not breed with one another generally but to define them genetically sometimes they are more genetically similar to eachother than other creatures who can breed with eachother than those which cannot sometimes. this is why i beleive phenotype can not be completely writen off the table for defining differences between both species and races (more scientificly accurate term a subspecies). ultimately we define these arbitrations of reality and find meaning and mechanical order where it makes since to us and is seemingly consistant with regularity. i believe what we see in race is a gradual adaptation to different envirnmental contexts by our species over tens of thousands of years at a very quick pace due to the extreme success that is found each time a useful trait emerged in our species.

and yeah race is different than ethnicity because ethnicity is actually a social construct by definition and not discribed by biology but rather how different groups of people associate themselves to a group through culture, phenotype, and proximity

lots of people want to conflate the 2 as being the same but race and ethnicity were actually created to be different terms that work on different mechanisms to define themselves

I think there is overlap of two entirely unrelated ideas that are falling under the same term.

perhaps the most scientificly accurate way to define races is to define them when genetic traits become the successful genetic trait in a populate till it becomes the dominant one purely due to natural selection

that might not be how races are defined though

though like species taxonomy, the taxonomy of race is also not static, it will develop as different sexually selective traits emerge in different populations, though racial mixing may both slow that down and speed it up at the same time depending on context

one is just assigning groups of genes that, as far as has been proven, originated from a particular area and have propagated from there. The other is an arbitrary group of easy to identity physical traits that are easy to identify by eye, but not by genes alone.

physical and social

but that is accurate

when talking about the latter that basically boils down to dark skin = black, light skin round eyed = white, light skin squinty eyed = Asian, i say it is right to say that out side the genes that actually control those phenotypes, they are not defined biologically.

which is the interpretation i get from Wood's statements.

probably best to catagorize ethnicity as a social construct and race as an archaic term for a modern concept of subspecies

the problem with race, is that humans sleep around so much, you end up with people who are 4 different "subspeices" in terms of genetic make-up, which might technically make them a new subspecies depending on how the genes interact/mutate with that new combo, and so on and so on, that it really doesn't have any meaning out side of "if you have one of these genes from this group, you might have these problems"

things are so scrambled that you are a collection of various races, which has created a unique grouping in and of itself

fucking slowmo, anyway so you cannot be defined by annoy of those parts

well thats where my statement about the process being slowed or sped up depending on certain contexts. i dont think race should really be used to heard contemporarey groups of people into different areas of the world and than locking them there and now we would have to deal with people who dont fit due to mixture. i think race should be described scientificaly and then people make of that what they will on introspectively purely.

an individual being a member of one race and only one race is a made up social construct as it is probably very rare these days to find a "pure blood" if you will, unless you are looking at England maybe ( 😉 ). instead any given individual is a made up of most likely at least 2 different races in terms of biology, particularly given the mobility of humans today, making isolation of genes much less likely to happen.

actually england isint a good example of a pure blood area, japan is a better example. either way lots of people are basicly derived from a single genetic lineage if defined by trait emergences while granted theres always been groups who are mixed and that population is growing now (basicly all of south america is mixed) that does not make the science pointless nor the process of catagorization for people if they choose to also pointless because it is still very likely to find you basicly decend from a single branch

i was making fun of the habit of the royal family inbreeding

also depending on the context if 2 branches converge for you at a very very distant time period your more recent branch is really what describes you best, its even likely your recent branch is where the traits which discribe the race emerge

also on the social construct side of the matter you could define european jewish people as simply european because while its true that looking at their genetics there is only a very little cross between that group and the europeans surrounding them, it is a case that the context of the european envirnment even within the relitively short 1500 years of jewish settlement of europe; has effected their natural selection process to drive the emergence of many traits from the population at a much faster rate than the surrounding europeans

yea one thing I didnt think of was that you can send your dna to ancenstry and it will tell you your race

It's worth noting that those numbers are less accurate than they'd like you to believe. As in there's not necessarily a guarantee that you're say 2% Scandanavian and 74% Asian on the dot. Their testing methodology, from what I've gathered, is nowhere near that sophisticated.

and 23 and me also only tells you based on your maternal lineage and not your paternal one to

i think, i could be wrong

Its not amazing, and coincidences happen as well. Since it tests by comparing your dna and checking how similar they are.

23andme csn tell your fathers side too

Mothers side via mitochondrial DNA, fathers through Y chromosome

My two cente: genetics is real and racial differences are real. If you deny this, it'll end poorly, as you can only deny reality so long before it bites you in the ass. But genetic differences do not and should not mean treating one person, or one group of people, with less respect and basic dignity than another

Depression is overrepresenter in northern european genetivs but we don't say that white people are emotionally inferior to others, eg

Most ironically for people who bring up the bell curve, the same data in TBC that shows a white/black iq gap also shows an asian/white and jewish/white iq gap but rwcial supremacists aren't going around talking about how jews are actually the master race.

Because iq doesnt define the worth of a human being

Also ive been pointing this out for years to no avail, but TBC spends like five pages saying "some people have lower intelligence than others and its genetic so this will never change" and five hundred pages saying "we need to help them, bc if we expect the same from them as we do more intelligent people, we will force them to live a life of misery and thats cruel and evil". But everyone ignores this part

wait wut

Wut which part?

TBC

The bell curve. Charles murray book. Widely considered to be hateful racial supremacist content because of a fiveish page digression where he points out different races have different average IQs

its still racist, i mean isn't that the soft bigotry of low exceptions and implying we need to "whiten up" the black race? i mean, isn't that the only way to help with genetic differences

The actual main thesis of the bell curve is:
1) IQ is an accurate measure of general intelligence
2) general intelligence is genetic and largely fixed; you cant really change it through eg education
3) iq is normally distributed, along a bell curve
4) american society is extremely good at filtering people by IQ, via the university system
5) this has the effect of taking the smartest people from every community out of that community
6) those smart people end up all in the same high-IQ bubble where they're all happy but ignorant of the reality of the rest of society
7) the resulting brain drain on other communities ends up leaving those less intelligent folks who are left behind in a poverty trap
8) this creates a de-facto caste system
9) this is oppressive to the lower castes (aka dumb people)

He was mostly advocating for... Actually I don't remember his proposed solution.

abolishing universities or IQ filtering?

idk

closed borders? because taking away high iq people from other countries makes them worse?

The ultimste irony is that what the book said about african americans is almost exactly the same as what SJWs say about african americans. The only diff is that SJWs blame "structural racism" and Murray blames "genetically low average IQ"

Arguably if you build a society that assumes (for example) that everyone is 120+ IQ this is actually structually oppressive to lower iq people

I'm curious what percentage of the population lives in a 20 mile radius of a university

I wonder if Murray would support affirmative action for low IQ.

Why would that help if he believes it's largely genetic?

according to wikipedia the only concrete policy recommendation they make is "stop implicitly subsidizing lower class people from having tons of babies, because it's lowering the nation's collective average IQ"

Affirmative action would be hypothetically to prevent the mentioned poverty trap.

Or, simply force everyone with a low IQ to preform manual labor.

Though technically speaking, IQ scores are rising by about ten points a decade and the average keeps having to be repositioned

you can actually influince average inteligence of a population of a relitively short period of time but relitive is many generations. its kinda obvious that on average african americans test a higher iq than their counterparts in africa. they are in an envirnment where intelegence has become a sexually selective trait for them, atleast before 40 years ago. not only that we highly suspect that the ashkanazi jewish population of europe represents a group of people whos inteligence increased at a rate disproportionate to all other european populations surrounding it in just 1500 years.

i am curious, anyone here for more gun control, i just want to find another viewpoint..

i think @I AM ERROR has mentioned an interest in guncontrol in the past

@Dugamar very recently that rising has stopped. Nobody knows why.

Genetics can change pretty quickly in some cases. It takes around 13 generations for a species living in safety to lose instinctual fear of predators

But it is possible that they never lose that fear too. For example cats are afraid of cucumbers because they see it and identify it as a snake even without ever encountering a snake.

schedrevka might be referencing the mouse utopia

I think that's a differen't level of instinct. Like a jump scare vs actually having something in front of you

I was talking about a study that was released this year

Look up Japan's rabbit island for a real life example. They were kept their for ww2 chemical experiments and then released when the scientists left the island. They come back a decade later, and the rabbits are EVERYWHERE and now you can go there as a tourist and lay down in the park and they'll walk all over you hoping for treats.

jeez, 13 generations to stop fearing Hollywood tycoons?

@Zuihou depends on what you mean by that 😄

ok, current gun control laws, do we need more or less?

or 3rd option?

first of all you need your current ones to be actually enforced, than you need them to make fucking sense.

That sounds about right

pretty much same line of thought..

You can tell how politicized it is based on how little the proposed solutions reflect the problem

now, since we have a federal serial number system, do you think the firearm serial number should be following car vins system?

in where they should be placed and how lost/stolen firearms should join a easy to search system?

and as a ground rule: giving the general populace the rights to bear arms is stupid af. the idea that you achieve anything positive by trying to get rid of the guns in the usa is retarded.

It really isn't. It's a fundamental necessity of a free society

but us has the freedom to bear arms

it doesn't have a "as long as you pass certain tests"

Yes, I'm saying that idea isn't stupid

thus why US is weird..

It also has the greatest potential of all Western nations wrt not turning into an Orwellian shithole

and i joined a debate forum and you know what they told me when i mentioned the 2A, "not a valid argument since it is only for the US and not to other countries" when the topic was pertaining to US gun control :V

to answer your question: that system you mentioned sounds kinda reasonable, i would need to know how it actually works to see if would be a good thing

Fundamental necessity to *maintaining* a free society

so many people arguing for gun control seems to ignore the 2A and be like, but that's you guys, if we want good gun control ,we have to ignore that" and it devolved to authoritarian government massacring people after gun control is enacted to the fullest..

well... my ground rule is basically "2A is stupid, getting rid of it is even dumber" 😉

I would say absolute right to self defense is also part of a free society in and of itself

But then on top of that it's a failsafe

@I AM ERROR so the way it works is a car frame has multiple places to place a vin, 1 visible, 2 not fully visible so it makes it harder to scratch off, the idea with firearms is one on the side as original, then 2 inside the frame where it is visible after disassembly this makes it harder to scratch off numbers, and this should be enabled for all firearm production that requires a serial in general and the technology is already there so this won't be like those stupid "smart gun" rules which is not even there..

"self defense" is using the force needed to defend yourself, the only reason a gun would be acceptable in a self defense scenario is if the attacker also has a gun. i prefer to remove guns from the equation completely.

so if a firearm is used in a crime, they can search the serial in the system and not worried how, oh firearm number is gone, well what to do now..

also self defense was a relatively new idea during the american revolution...

because that was shown as a difference where britain still has a rule of "meet force with exact force" where if a person has a knife, you can only use a knife in defense, in the us, we follow a "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"

oh and... 2A is not an argument in either direction for me (no, it does not matter pro - no, it does not matter that the AR-15 is not explicitly mentioned by name)

Wat

What if someone who is disabled is attacked by someone who has 50+ lbs on them and is extremely fit? Should they let someone kill them because that person doesn't have a gun and it should be a fair fight?

well the argument i had was , cars are regulated, therefore why can't guns be, i mentioned 2A, they said not an argument... iwas like.. well f this...

I just want to point out that the law does not differentiate between different kinds of deadly weapons in the US. So realistically if someone is coming at you with a deadly weapon then use of a firearm is justified.

cars aren't in the constitution

Guns are called 'the great equalizer' for a reason. Woman have good reason to fear a violent man, and a violent man has good reason to fear an armed woman.

plain and simple

^lol i mentioned that, they said not an argument so i gave up on that site being idiots..

why is debate in slowmode, is it really needed @JDM_WAAAT

Yeah the idea of equal force discounts the notion of unequal efficacy in violent conflict

!slowmode 5

**<#463068752725016579>** is now in *s l o w m o t i o n*. Regular users can only post once every 5 seconds or so.

(Suggestion, type `!slowmode off` when you want things to be normal again)

i hate the "what if an old disabled impoverished grandma has to defend herself" - i would not trust such a person with a gun 😛

When someone chooses to attack someone else outside of the ring they're giving up on any notion of civility or a fair fight

At what point in getting my face smashed in by a trained dude twice my size am I allowed to start using a gun?

it punishes people like me that type multiple lines to make them easy to read instead of one long line...

Lol but they do use them responsibly

slow mode is on so that people actually type out what they want to say instead of just spamming multiple lines

it's only down to 5 seconds now

@@I AM ERROR Who said the person has to have dementia? I am disabled, should I just role over and die if someone wants to harm me?

yeah that should work, I guess.. better 😃

Miss America 1945 iirc defended herself a few years back with a snub nosed pistol

basically, encourage people to put more thought into what they're saying

DONT PUNISH ME FOR QUICK THOUGHT AND TYPING 😃

A little old lady isn't going to get the upper hand against a 30 something fit dude

^unless they have a firearm

If she were a real man she'd beat him in fisticuffs

Aye but that's the point

well my idea is this, get rid of the NFA stamps, if i want a howitzer, i should be able to buy a howitzer...

Can you not?

There are private citizens who own tanks and AA guns

it's no longer considered small arms....

@Schedrevka no, you should defend yourself to the degree allowed by law

Takes a higher class license to own stuff like that if I'm not mistaken

I'd rather live than follow the law tbh

well, you need nfa stamp for the artillery then you need nfa stamps for each of the rounds :V

In Maine
17-A M.R.S.A. § 2(9) Dangerous weapon: A. "Use of a dangerous weapon" means the use of a firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is used or threatened to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. B. "Armed with a dangerous weapon" means in actual possession, regardless of whether the possession is visible or concealed, of: (1) A firearm; (2) Any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury; or (3) Any other device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, is capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury. For purposes of this definition, the intent may be conditional. C. When used in any other context, "dangerous weapon" means a firearm or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
So firearm is equivalent to a knife for the purposes of that law. Also depending on intent could equal a vehicle.

since the round are in of itself a DD

well i am in kommiefornia, where sheet metal is considered a firearm :V

oh... disclaimer: i'm not from the US so i have different perspective by default

forgot to mention that

I'm not from the US either

Obviously all states are not made equal. New Hampshire and Maine are "Constitutional Carry." While convenient for me personally I do believe that is taking it too far. I think that firearms safety classes should be a requirement.

@I AM ERROR My right to life shouldn't be dependent on the law. The law should be dependent on my right to life.

it's fine, i mean if you understand how US does have laws against government intervention on bearing firearms...

as long as your don't think firearms should be regulated like cars, i am fine with a healthy debate, but if people like to ignore the constitution because they feel it doesn't matter in this one argument, i will resort to ignoring freedom of speech also :V

stop using lived experiences in debates 😉 😛

firearms safety is VERY important to the point that I believe in the US it should be taught in school, but the fear is that some states would make passing the class such a hassle that it would be a loop hole to de facto ban guns

^they said no one needs to learn about gun safety, then when accidents with guns goes up, they blame the guns so they try to ban them all :V

Honestly I am all for gun education in schools

the law is (should be) there to make sure no one infringes on the rights of others, not to protect YOU

The law should not get in the way of my fundamental ability to defend myself or those around me

I personally own a Mossberg M500A1 and a Sig Sauer 1911 full size. Based on a little bit of personal experience I do not believe in "Constitutional Carry" I think Concealed Carry should be "Shall Issue" and all States should reciprocate and accept other CC permits.

There can be examination to make sure my claim is honest

As far as Open Carry, you do you.

open carry is stupid even as a tactical option...

I have no guns, and have no intention of owning any, but care about my right to choose

But there should not be a scenario where I defend myself or another citizen honestly and then go to prison for it

It does light you up as a target if the criminals are not deterred.

Has there ever been a case where something like that has happened?

^woman was in a car accident, car was on fire, good samaritan pulled her out before the car went up in flames, she is now disabled, sued good samaritan arguing she would have been fine if he did not move her... she won...

Outside of America for sure

"Excessive force" if you defend yourself too hard

I think I've seen one case where someone got their open carried handgun pickpocketed , but really he should have been using a holster more like the police do where it's hard to get out unless you're used to it

^i love the concept of excessive force, oh you shot him when he was beating you with his fists, excessive force! :V

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/carrying-openly-make-target/

thanks

excessive force is very dicey.

@Schedrevka also why do you think gun robbers shoot the floor guard first when robbing a bank? :V

That's a bit different than an unexpected citizen carrying a gun

And that guy got mugged. Same thing would've happened if he had a new Iphone out

It's dicey because it offers unclear parameters in an unclear scenario as to how you're allowed to defend yourself

It's worse in Canada where you are expected both to run away and to announce any weapons you have and your intent to use them should that not be sufficient

You have to audibly up the ante when someone has already escalated to the point of violence

^well in the us, they have rules where if force is applied to a person who isn't a threat, you are now the aggressor, because a person mugging you all of sudden knocked unconscious, you cannot continue hitting him after he is not longer a threat..

Sure, and the endpoint should be when you are no longer at risk

If the guy was concealed carrying there is a chance he could have turned the tables on the mugger.

But who knows when the attacker is no longer a threat?

Sure, I don't think anyone's arguing that concealed carry is generally safer for the carrier

When he flees, falls unconscious or dies is a pretty decent baseline

^it's up to the jury to decide if the person is reasonably in fear of bodily harm or not... that's why it goes to court..

because the 'victim' may perceive that the attacker could still be a threat

, a guy cannot make it up since all facts will be shown in court when a DA looks at it, and you are like, "oh he's on the ground, but i still fear for my life, so i put another 3 shots in him" won't fly for the judge or the jury...

Plus if you don't want that scenario, don't attack people

^well if he surrenders, you cannot continue using the same level of force as lethal anymore, you can do a citizen arrest, however..

For sure

I'm just saying if you're worried about the grey area, try not assaulting people

but california wants all gun owners to give the assailants a day in court as they are stabbing you with a knife :V goddamn liberalism is a disease...

one politician was talking about how conceal carry allows people to be judge, jury and executioner.... was like.... umm no...

lol

Good rule of thumb is once the assailant is no longer attacking have him get onto the ground and call the police and make sure he doesn't go anywhere.

The definition of when you can use deadly force does allow you to gun down an escaping felon though.

well the rule of thumb is, always say you used lethal force to stop a threat.... do not say you have to kill him... this is where it becomes a legal trap where they can argue you use lethal for to kill, not to stop a threat...

But he is escaping though?

@Lucian actually, there was a case iirc where someone was running outside and was shot, i think the guy somehow got the jury to believe the guy was still a threat because the guy running threatened he was coming back....

What can get the cops in trouble is the portion where it says, "lesser means have been exhausted or cannot be reasonably employed"

They are trained in lesser means so in most cases it can be reasonably employed they also have tasers which work sometimes.

well taser doesn't work after 1 ranged deploy and 2 dry stun, indoors so no go on oc spray...

also they are not trained in MMA, so doesn't know grappling techniques, they have lethal force left..

There is also a chance that a deployed taser can ignite pepper spray.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5312322/man-flames-taser-tear-gas-french-cops/

i got in a heated debate on why lesser than lethal actually leads to a bigger problem than just with lethal force... :V the idea was for taser to work, they would have to be within 30 feet to deploy, and leads to a false sense or security when taser only works 50% of the time...

Not even 50% of the time. You need both prongs making good contact and clothing is sufficient insulation especially winter clothes which will allow even less penetration.

Just beanbag everyone in the junk

^LAPD said roughly 50% of all taser deployment worked on first deployment, and each subsequent try has lower chances..

Baggy shirts could also prevent good contact. I saw a video where the police tasered a guy who was wearing a white cotton shirt. He then tried to make the arrest with a baton which was then wrestled out of his grip and after that the police just shot him.

Even then there's footage of people just not going the fuck down

How about deploying riot shield as a weapon of choice?

bulky... doesn't stop hand to hand confrontation..

But then officers are also trained to immediately bring out their sidearm too are they not?

True it is bulky, but most of the time it takes more than two police to engage a attacker, so if both cop are armed with a shield, it should make it hard for the attacker to use hand to hand combat

If it were as easy to carry as a telescoping baton I could see it but shields are only really viable when they have time to deploy it.

^ASP are illegal in kommiefornia

Does that mean auto-telescoping?

hello, is this the party chat?

Try general or shitposting.
Onto the next <#463068752725016579>: Illegal immigrant militia to take back mexico from cartels. Yes/no?

they are dead. illegal immigrants can't take care of their kids much less form a militia.

Yes

Take the correct Syria option- rearm and send back

Make Mexico Great Again

what about deploying US imperialism to bring central america under full US control. i mean who do you think runs the cartels already?

kill the drug war by accepting the fact that we are losing to dopers.

I need clarification on the debate question.

we're gonna send anyone with an expired visa to mexico to fight the cartels.

I would send them to the Mexican consulate. And let them decide. Mexico cannot decide where US expats go int heir own country. We cannot tell these illeglas what to do in their own home country after we deport them.

true dat, but can we solidify our borders?

End the Drug War. Reform the crminal Justice System. Defund the DoD. And Let immigration return to the States and private property owner.

End eniment domain.

I am for Peace and trade. Illegal immigration, border walls, and tariffs prevent that.

what if texas wants a wall? is that okay?

Sure. As long as it is done voluntarily and without state violence.

I wouldn't agree with doing that. The problem of Mexico and Illegal immigration needs to be solved, but I dont think that would be efficient. Though to be honest, I havent much thought of this, so I will have to think more or talk more about the idea.

shoot 'em all and let god sort them out!

Telling you, nuking the world, answer to all hunab problems.

@MickeyTheGymMouse (Daniel) It's based on voluntary principles, but, yes. It's a hard pill to swallow. Thanks for considering my idea.