Glide @ Glide @lemmy.ca

Posts

1

Comments

688

Joined

2 yr. ago

Exactly. The level of cultural brainwashing in this thread is insane. You don't just let any random volunteer perform jobs like this.

Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this. They're not trained professionals, and they're definitely not action heroes. And now someone has to explain to a child, a parent, a partner, etc., that the civillian death here was just an unfortunate outcome of a wonderful American citizen protecting his country. It's actually fucking despicible.

But what else could we have done?

What I want done is to create strong gun legislation instead of encouraging citizens to play action hero and see the civilian shot in the crossfire as an unfortunate but unpreventable casualty.

EDIT - I'm addressing everyone's comments here rather than copy-pasting the same response to everyone. I had only read the first section of the article, having been fooled by the wall of ads on mobile into believing that the first five paragraphs was the whole article. Without the additional explination and context in the remaining article I had believed that, when approached by volunteer security, the man with the rifle had attempted to flee, and the securities' response was to gun him down, and an innocent caught a stray. It was insane to me that people thought to defend that, but as people pointed out that the rifleman was running towards a crowd with the rifle in a firing position, I was wondering how the hell people got that from the 5 paragraphs. I reloaded the article, scrolled past a full screen of advertising, and discovered there was a lot more depth provided in the article than I had realized. With a rifle aimed at civilians, the security volunteer was right to take the shot, because the intent for harm was clear.

I stand by this being a systematic issue that needs solving at the root, but in the moment the security volunteer handled the situation correctly.

I did miss that bit in the full article, so fair enough. It certainly could be more clear though: they're burying the lede pretty badly by opening with the wording that insinuates we don't know.

"A person believed to be part of a peace keeping team" and "people running security" are not the same thing. At a glance this looks like the "good guy with a gun" mythos that pro-gun advocates keep spreading cost an innocent person their life.

If this is professional security who fucked up, sure, there's a discussion to be had. If this is a volunteer peacekeeper who showed up strapped, he is part of the problem, not the solution.

No, I am responding based on the whole article.

What the fuck does "believed to be" mean in this sentence? Why do we not know? Were they hired protection? Are they a trained professional? Or are they an idiot with a gun who thinks they're an action hero?

The article is very unclear on this front.

EDIT: Ha, no I wasn't. Ad space is pervasive, and I had believed I had read the whole article when I had only read like a fifth of it.

Wait, so, trying to follow this: someone pulled a rifle on protestors, so a "concerned citizen" pulled a gun on that person, shot, missed, killed a bystander, and then shot again? Am I following this right? And the person being held accountable for the death is the guy who initially pulled the rifle, not the random citizen firing a weapon into a crowd?

Is this that "American exceptionalism" I keep hearing about?

EDIT - Nevermind, there's a lot more detail after the wall of ads that convinced me the article was done.

Based response tbh.

While you are overreacting to the accident itself, driving is not for everyone. I strongly disagree with driving being a basic skill everyone should have. This is some North American cultural mythos created to help further push the responsibility of building decent public transit off of our lawmakers and governments.

Driving is a challenging thing to do correctly, and a not small number of people have no idea how to do it, but are on the roads anyway. While I believe you should take an accident like that with a growth mindset, the clear truth is you've never felt comfortable behind the wheel, and your skill set doesn't seem to be built for that. If it's important to you, I suspect you'd be capable of overcoming the unique challenges it presents to you, but it's not. There are ways to live without being a driver, and things you can provide to others in exchange for them being the drivers in your life, and imo, that is fine.

Don't quit driving because you had an accident. Decide if being able to drive matters to you, and decide how you want to live.

I still have the CD in a box somewhere. It was loaned to me by a friend and I never gave it back. Hilariously, I still see that friend, so that might make for a fun conversation.

38% is in fact shockingly high.

What the fuck is this slop posing as academic study, lmfao. "arcruacy"? "tinking"? Using a pile of academic language around slop doesn't make that slop accurate or useful, and the joke that is the writing style shows that this wasn't reviewed by anyone with a brain cell.

As of this week, according to the latest MLS stats circulating on industry social media, there are now more than an astounding 32,000 active residential real estate listings in the GTA, not even counting never-lived-in units. This is the most in many years, perhaps ever, and has created the largest disparity the city has seen between supply and demand.

So then reduce the prices.

You can't call it a collapse, complain about all the supply you have, refuse to reduce prices, and rally to the praises of free-market capitalism. The market has spoken. You have overvalued your property. Now give us houses and take your loss.

So DOGE's cuts saved just over $150 million (apparently I can't read), and we've already burned through most of those saving mobilizing the national guard to tear gas people foolish enough to claim Trump isn't king? Fantastic. I am so tired of all this "winning."

Edit: I misread some stuff but the essence of the absurdity I am directing my anger at remains the same. Fuck fascism.

I do want to state that the flight model has NOTHING on Elite. But otherwise, it is in a lot of ways a game which I wish Elite was a lot closer to.

Friends and I downloaded it, prompted by this post. There's a little bit of awkwardness and animation jank, but man, does the game get the core concept right.

Space is not flat, the ship feels like a near arcane contraption, rail guns should feel like they'll punch a hole in a small planet, and grappling hooks always feel good. These guys know what I'm looking for. The only thing I could genuinely ask for is a more true to physics flight model, but ultimately, I'll be too busy taking down fighters using a rocket launcher while gravity-booted to the nose of my ship to care too much.

On the contrary, it'd be rude to expect any other answer. Shoving expectations onto a complete stranger and then judging them for firmly denying you is what's rude here.

She added the online survey for Albertans to share their ideas about school library collections doesn't limit the number of times someone can take the survey which can skew the results.

Welp, hold on while I fill out a survey a couple of times.

With you in spirit, but they have too much control over too many lives to just be dismissive about.

While I am sure there are real, specific reasons that can be pointed to as "the reason," the real answer is that you can't put two narcissists in a room together and tell them they're on the same team. This always was the only possible outcome.

It just makes me sad that you seem to believe the things you say.

C'mon man, we've been through this song and dance. You are perpetuating lies that have been fed to you by people who realized that it's easier to stoke fear than build unity. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it is anything but misinformation.

I know I tore into you earlier, but watching you continue to lick the boots of the people who are hurting you is just sad.