This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
That was answered, like several times. I don’t care about the intent (from ether party), but what does grind my gears is the wilfully ignoring any answer that does not fit the weird fear mongering position that this guy is here to protect anyone:
And your response to a credible threat that is solved with the exact same means at other public gatherings, is to not use them, because you feel safe without them? If you apply this way of thinking to other security measures, why would you have a lock at the door? People won’t steal from you (until they actually do because you didn’t have a lock in your door)
This isn’t even true (we literally just had several parades/protests where a driver DROVE through the fucking crowd), you completely dodge my question, and then in bad faith tried to paint me like I’m some sort of crazy person who thinks intimidation is somehow a good idea.
I’m done with this conversation. I don’t have to tolerate bad faith arguments when I’ve repeatedly shown I want to have civil discourse. Next time, don’t respond if you can’t act like an adult and treat someone who’s trying to improve themselves and act like an adult.
OK, dude wringing his hands about what if someone brings in a dirty bomb while cops bash in heads. 🙄 The grandstanding like I didn’t bring up violent freaks running over and shooting protestors first is a cute touch, too.
If you want to be treated as a serious person to have a serious conversation with then be fucking serious.
I’ve repeatedly said that cops using snipers/spotters is not a good solution, and that cops are part of the problem, but okay believe whatever lies you wanna tell yourself I suppose. Thats your prerogative
This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
You did not address what they said and instead made a slew of assumptions about their intent. They actually had a question
That was answered, like several times. I don’t care about the intent (from ether party), but what does grind my gears is the wilfully ignoring any answer that does not fit the weird fear mongering position that this guy is here to protect anyone:
You keep posting this picture, can you share where you got it?
What a liar
Who?
And your response to a credible threat that is solved with the exact same means at other public gatherings, is to not use them, because you feel safe without them? If you apply this way of thinking to other security measures, why would you have a lock at the door? People won’t steal from you (until they actually do because you didn’t have a lock in your door)
This isn’t even true (we literally just had several parades/protests where a driver DROVE through the fucking crowd), you completely dodge my question, and then in bad faith tried to paint me like I’m some sort of crazy person who thinks intimidation is somehow a good idea.
I’m done with this conversation. I don’t have to tolerate bad faith arguments when I’ve repeatedly shown I want to have civil discourse. Next time, don’t respond if you can’t act like an adult and treat someone who’s trying to improve themselves and act like an adult.
OK, dude wringing his hands about what if someone brings in a dirty bomb while cops bash in heads. 🙄 The grandstanding like I didn’t bring up violent freaks running over and shooting protestors first is a cute touch, too.
If you want to be treated as a serious person to have a serious conversation with then be fucking serious.
I’ve repeatedly said that cops using snipers/spotters is not a good solution, and that cops are part of the problem, but okay believe whatever lies you wanna tell yourself I suppose. Thats your prerogative