Gun Rights

Sure, Police Can Get Confused Seeing People Open Carrying Weapons in the Midst of a Mass Shooting. That's Not a Good Reason to Rethink the Legality of "Open Carry."

|

Dallas Police Chief David Brown told reporters yesterday that "it's increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s slung over their shoulder and they're in a crowd," he said. "We don't know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting."

Twitter

He's talking about Texas' practice of allowing open carrying of legally owned long guns, even without a specific license, which led to more than one person on the scene, well, openly carrying their legally owned weapons. 

Brown was being hyperbolic, to be sure; even in the crazy situation during Micah Johnson's violent sniper rampage in Dallas last week, there was no actual situation of "everyone starts shooting." As far as I know, the practice of open carrying has never anywhere led to such a dangerous situation.

Still, the sight of openly armed people on a scene when someone is wantonly shooting at police, or anyone, certainly does risk police making a mistake potentially fatal to the open-carrier. (Even though the greatest danger in this case was the police spreading a picture of Mark Hughes, a black man carrying his AR-15, on Twitter as a "suspect" in the event, which he had nothing to do with. They lied to him, he insists, about evidence they had linking him to the shooting when he turned himself in as well.)

Dallas had already been home to a deliberate movement for open carry on the part of black citizens, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, which Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Zach Weissmueller have both reported on for Reason. The Club was unhappy over 70 Dallas police shootings of citizens over the past 10 years.

The practice of openly carrying a legally owned weapon is legal to some degree (varying in what is required in terms of licenses, or types of gun, and along other dimensions) in 45 states. Even some gun rights activists, including one NRA staffer in a statement the organization took down when it pissed off too many people, frown on the practice. The argument against it is usually along the lines of: open-carrying is too show-offy and potentially alienating to the cause of widening the rights to carry guns in public.  A. Barton Hinkle has argued against the politeness and probity of open carry at this site.

Concealed carry has the extra benefit, some argue, of deterring crime more widely since would-be crooks have no idea who might be carrying. In addition, concealed carrying is less likely to unnerve fellow citizens or police officers.

Historically, though, the NRA openly supported laws against open carry in California in the 1960s, laws inspired by the scare put into the establishment by seeing armed Black Panthers in public.

Should we be that scared of permitted carriers? You can make your own relative judgments of risk, but even when they were trying their best to scare up scary stats, the best the Violence Policy Center could come up with was about 3 times a year that a licensed gun carrier committed a mass shooting, from likely over 12 million such licensed carriers.

The New York Times yesterday tried to build a long "stroking one's chin in deep concern" piece about the alleged second thoughts about open carry that the police's mistakes regarding Mark Hughes should cause us to have.

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings told the Times, in their words, that "he supported tightening the state's gun laws to restrict the carrying of rifles and shotguns in public" after the Dallas police shooting.

The Times later notes:

One of the state's most prominent open-carry activists, C. J. Grisham, the founder and president of Open Carry Texas, disputed the extent of the confusion caused by marchers carrying rifles. In videos from the scene, he said, "you can see that police are walking right past people who are open-carrying rifles and it's not a problem. So obviously it's not that difficult to tell who the good guys and the bad guys are."

The Times was not able to come up with any other past circumstance under which there was a clear and obvious danger connected with open carry or a serious risk of confusing a carrier with someone the police really needed to consider shooting. One person open carrying during the Dallas shooting was arrested on a misdemeanor charge, the Times reports, who "was not legally allowed to carry a gun."

When The Atlantic dedicated a long article in January to "Tallying the Costs of Open Carry," those costs were entirely about people's discomfort over seeing them, some slight difficulty in terms of legally keeping open-carriers out of private property in areas where it is legal (that should not be difficult, and if the law makes it so that should change), and businesses forced into the uncomfortable position of having to displease either their customers who want to carry or their customers who don't want to see guns.

Open carrying may in many cases cause social unease of that sort that the polite might want to think about avoiding. If you think there's a strong chance you might wander while open carrying into a mass public shooting in which your carrying puts you at risk of being mistaken for a mass shooter, you might want to personally rethink the practice. (Though it doesn't seem a particularly rational fear, comparatively.)

But this one bizarre outlying situation in Dallas, even given the regrettable aftermath for Mark Hughes (who insists he's still in fear for his life and receiving death threats) caused not so much by him carrying as by the police marking him very publicly as a possible/likely mass cop-killer, is far from sufficient reason to rethink open carry as a matter of public policy.

NEXT: Obama Speaks at Dallas Memorial, Bernie Endorses Clinton, Pence or Newt? P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So-called “polite society” still says it’s OK to find open carriers icky.

    1. Especially if they are black. That’s about the only thing that could get the GOP to turn on the 2nd Amendment.

      1. Maybe, MAYBE the Republican establishment – the bunch that seldom get out of Washington. The automatic assumption “all Republicans are slavering racists” is a) old and b) pretty much entirely a construct of the Progressive/Liberal Left (which DOES have more than its fair share of slavering racists, starting with Al “photographic negative of a Grand Dragon” Sharpton.

      2. CMW says, “Especially if they are black. That’s about the only thing that could get the GOP to turn on the 2nd Amendment.”

        Er, no. Wrong party numb nuts. So easy to see which side of the political spectrum you originate from with ignorant comments like that. Did you forget this was Reason and not HuffPo.

      3. That’s about the only thing that could get the GOP to turn on the 2nd Amendment.

        I won’t speak for “the GOP,” but I do know a bunch of gun owners. They see it as a good thing.

        In fact, what the MSM is pointedly not even hinting at is the impact of black males open-carrying, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, surging Pink Pistol membership, increase in women buying first guns, 10% of Texas school districts with teacher carry, and in two weeks the implementation of Texas college campus carry legislation.

        The gun control folks are hyperventilating because they’re watching their “programme” circle the drain.

      4. One of the most common laments about how Illinois arranged its CCW law was that the people that need it the most would be mostly unable to get one.

        That is, poor blacks and hispanics in Chicago would be the least likely to be able to afford the $150 application fee, and the 16 hour ‘training’ that was mandated. Carrying on CTA and Metra was forbidden so those same folks who often don’t have private vehicles were basically locked out of traveling the city while carrying.

        Adding insult to injury, the Cook Sheriff and CPD demanded that they be allowed time to object to any person. Needless to say they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to object. Simply having an arrest for any charge…trespassing, protesting (ie disorderly conduct), whatever, even if it was dismissed was enough to gain an objection from those two departments. Fighting the objection took more time and money that poor people don’t have.

    2. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $15200 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site.. This is what I do..
      Go here to this… http://www.trends88.com

    3. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $15200 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site.. This is what I do..
      Go here to this… http://www.trends88.com

      1. Was that on her back or on her knees?

  2. More collective pant-shitting from our illustrious Heroes on Blue?.
    They shoot first, and discourage any questions, so.. what difference, at this point.. does it make?

    1. The police are there to protect our rights until they are not because their monopoly on power is reduced or it gets too difficult like free speech zones. They are probably most afraid of an on scene jury with immediate power to react.

  3. Arm everyone, way cheaper and easier than confiscating, plus, even the Luddites can’t bitch about it.

  4. Seems to me the onus should be on the officers for not being able to tell a “good guy” from a “bad guy” not the citizen exercising their rights.

    1. Are you trying to make an already impossibly difficult job even more impossible. Sarc off

  5. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”

    Conversely, we don’t know who the cop is versus the bad cop when we get pulled over.

    1. The good cop is the one whose nightstick smells like dried blood, the bad cop is the one whose nightstick smells like lube.

      1. Ummm…. you might have that backwards. NTTATWWT.

      2. What if the cops’s plunger smells like both?

    2. There is no good cop?

      1. Not one who’s pulled me over.

        1. I’m pretty anti cop, but I do have to state that the police have helped me before when I’ve had car problems. Usually, sheriff’s and Staties are the most helpful, but even Lakewood PD helped me push my car into a parking a lot and then gave me and my beer a ride home.

    3. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”

      Perhaps observing the behavior of someone could give a clue?

      Are they (a) shooting? at (b) us? might be a starting point, no?

      1. Something seems to be missing from your mental flow chart, Dean…ah – Furtive movements!

        #BlueLivesMatterMore

    4. (puts Fist on secret watch-list)

      1. +1 Lucky Astrology Mood Watch

  6. those costs were entirely about people’s discomfort over seeing them

    If it saves just one pair of underwear…

    1. #brownpantsmatter

  7. I remember being in Iraq and having to walk around Iraqi militia with AK’s. Or having a bunch of Ugandans running around with them and willing to point them at you if you defied their order to wear a PT belt. Americans were not trusted to walk around with loaded weapons on our FOB. No one bitched about it. The standard to shoot was positive identification. Confirmation the target was a threat. And the fact that they were armed wasn’t good enough. We even had more strident escalation of force measures.

    The cops had zero confusion because of this guy with his AR-15 during the shooting. In the aftermath they somehow got a hold of the picture and focused their early efforts on finding him. But there was zero element of confusion caused by it during the shooting. So fuck them. My rights can’t be curtailed because you can’t handle your job. And frankly it’s a disgrace that one guy was able do as much damage as he did to them. An Army pogue – not some super warrior. These are not highly trained professionals.

    Then we have leaders like this sack of shit who can’t give a simple fucking speech without mentioning himself dozens of times or politicizing it.

    1. this guy with his AR-15

      I thought it was an SKS?

      1. Sorry, the actual shooter had an SKS. The subject exercising his temporary privilege to go armed had the AR. Carry on.

        1. Now it’s a Saiga IZ-240 in 5.45x39mm

          1. Which is the “import legal” sporting version of a semi-auto AK-74 type rifle.

    2. I call bullshit. Every soldier bitches about wearing PT belts. 🙂

      1. Holy shit. I just googled the pt belt. Certainly didn’t have em back in the day. I thought military doctrine had decided, back around the end of the 18th century, that making your troops highly visible, and your officers even more visible, was no longer sound?

        1. It’s for use during physical training, but they force you to wear them around at night on base. And in the field.

        2. Holy shit. I just googled the pt belt.

          Would.

      2. Fucking PT belts. Navy doesn’t (didn’t at least as of 2012) – mainly because our PT uniform is a canary yellow shirt with reflective lettering.

        I got bitched at at my last duty station (MC air base) because I was PTing before 0800 (0730!) in a bright yellow shirt but didn’t have the *Marine* required reflective PT belt

    3. Society as a large, the media, and politicians have managed to turn a group of people who are supposed to be doing a job, namely ‘serve and protect’ into heroes, made them unaccountable to those who they are supposed to serve, and now have given them privilege to play army guy. Only a moron couldn’t figure out that this is a recipe for disaster.

    4. (Civilian here, but spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan)

      I was on a small FOB in Baghdad for a few days, and during the initial briefing they warned us to spend as little time as possible on the main thoroughfare through the base at night due to the snipers that had a pretty unobstructed view of the whole thing. That same night I had a butter bar yelling at me because I wasn’t wearing the reflective belt after sundown. I just laughed at him.

      My last trip to Afghanistan was interesting though. EVERYONE (save me – my agency wouldn’t authorize it) was armed. I actually saw a woman who looked like my 70 year old aunt wearing an embroidered shoulder holster…

  8. My distaste for cops is also staying strong. Cleveland Browns player tweets pick cops don’t like. Cleveland police union rep threatens to remove security from Browns stadium unless he goes “to Dallas, help[s] the families who lost their loved ones last week, write[s] them a check, look[s] them in the eyes and give[s] a heartfelt apology.”

    How about as soon as a police union apologizes for one of their own brutalizing a citizen or wrongly shooting one of them. How about that, you cunts.

    Best part:
    “You’re a grown-ass man, and you claim you were too emotional to know it was wrong? Think we’ll accept your apology? Kiss my ass.”

    You’re a grown-ass man getting emotional about a tweet from a football player and using profanity in public statements. Fuck off.

    1. Idle threat anyway, no way in hell the Cleveland cops would give up their overtime pay to watch football, even if it’s shitty football.

      1. no way in hell the Cleveland cops would give up their overtime pay to watch football, politicians would risk their football team walking off to another city, leaving them holding the bag on the stadium… even if it’s shitty football.

        ftfy

        1. I agree, but the threat was made by someone who imagined he possessed a certain amount of authority over subordinates, (which he almost certainly didn’t have) his delusions don’t appear to even consider that this isn’t his call to make.

    2. Don’t read the comments.

      1. Too late *shudder*.

      2. I disagree. This one comment is GOLD!!

        “A candid and clear statement from Mr. Loomis. Good for him. We are so lost in what is politically correct that idiots feel they have permission to post as Crowell did and the past Miss Alabama calling the Dallas shooter a ‘martyr.’ Meanwhile those who are being slandered and disprespected aren’t supposed to speak up for fear of upsetting people?”

        “Because our nation is too PC, people are able to post things that I find OFFENSIVE!! They need to be stopped!!”

        The funny thing is that the right is pretty much just as PC as the left, just instead of getting offended on behalf of minorities they take offense on behalf of police, soldiers, and the entire country.

    3. It blows my mind that cops (public “servants”) can pick and choose what part of their job they can do or not.

      1. Do you want them to go home safely from football games or not?

        1. If my answer is “no”, do I get arrested?

      2. blows my mind that cops (public “servants”) can pick and choose what part of their job they can do or not.

        Juice,

        Last year a buddy of mine told me that during a discussion he had with a police officer friend whom he knew quite well, the policeman stated how unappreciative civilians were of him and his peers, and that among some of the police officers in the city there had been several suggestions of a “Blue Flu”, which meant that those police officers participating would call out sick for several days in order to provide the civilians an example of what would happen to them if the police were not there to protect them.

        I am glad that this type of choice “blows your mind”.

        1. They’ve already done this to a limited extent in certain cities. The NYPD basically did a work slowdown and, this may shock people, but no one gave a shit. People were probably happier than they weren’t being harassed over trivial bullshit.

          1. I asked my buddy if he was aware of the NYPD’s actions which you mention, Brochettaward, and if so whether or not he had pointed out the results to his friend. He said that his friend was already agitated and that mentioning it would only alienate him/them.

        2. And that’s supposed to scare people, why? When do cops ever protect people? They’ll show up after you’re already dead, and if you’re still alive when the get there, it’s more likely they’ll shoot you or your family, or your pets, or all 3, than protect you.

        3. police are not “there to protect me” anyways. Courts have ruled they have no liability if they fail to protect any individual. Police are there for AFTER-incident cleanup and report writing,and for tax collection.(ticket writing)

          “when seconds count,police are minutes away.”

      3. Providing ballpark security isn’t part of officers’ “job,” it’s moonlighting. The promoters hire off-duty cops as “security” and pay them handsomely. A lot of stores and other special events do the same.

        Therefore individual officers have no obligation to accept the extra part-time work.

        Funny example: The Texas concealed carry law went into effect in 1996. The San Antonio Sea World had a panic attack, posted big “OMGNoGunz” signs, and started wanding people. Including off-duty cops for the first week.

        “OMG their gun might fly loose when they’re on the roller coaster!”

        Bexar County Sheriff sent them a letter saying deputies would no longer accept security jobs, and if Sea World detained a shoplifter or whatever, their security could bring him downtown instead of calling BCSO for a pickup.

        The next week the policy changed, allowing LEO carry. The weekend after that was suddenly “Law Enforcement Appreciation Weekend.”

    4. Cleveland’s police union is notoriously hardline. They rabidly defended that panicky fuckstick who shot Tamir Rice.

  9. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”

    I guess the old method of differentiating them by the color of their hat wouldn’t go over so well in this context.

    1. Even back in the day there was Hopalong Cassidy.
      http://www.hopalong.com/home.asp

  10. Brown was being hyperbolic, to be sure; even in the crazy situation during Micah Johnson’s violent sniper rampage in Dallas last week, there was no actual situation of “everyone starts shooting.” As far as I know, the practice of open carrying has never anywhere led to such a dangerous situation.

    I beg to differ. Every couple of years a dozen officers, all of whom carry their guns openly on their hips, will discharge a volley of 100+ rounds into suspects (armed and unarmed), surrounding pedestrians and property and, occasionally, even each other.

    1. +1 circular firing squad

    2. THAT’S DIFFERENT. They have the training to properly panic fire.

  11. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”

    To be fair, you don’t seem to know the difference when they’re not shooting either.

    1. Perhaps we should wear uniforms.

      1. Would you consider kilts?

        1. I have commissioned Gilmore to design them.

          1. I look forward to his suggestions, and will remind him that he should remain cognizant of the ladies in this regard.

            1. I’m going extra short for the ladies. They’re in for a real treat if it’s windy.

              1. Nobody wants to see your droopy hemorrhoids.

                1. Kilts will be the default uniform for enlisted, pantsuits for officers, and bagpipes for all! (If you know what I mean)

                  1. Kilts will be the default uniform for enlisted, pantsuits for officers, and bagpipes for all! (If you know what I mean)

                    There will be plaid?

              2. Stamina, Playa, stamina: always go long for the ladies.

                1. Oh, I know how to think about baseball.

                  1. I don’t think about baseball.

  12. Since when has the left needed a *good* reason for anything they say or do? Terrible reasons and sometimes no reason whatsoever are their stock in trade.

  13. I own guns but I have to say that open carry is a bunch of bullshit. Nobody needs to carry a rifle or handgun into a public place. Leave that shit in your car or at your house or get a licence for concealed carry. If a guy walked down the street with his dick hanging out or a woman had her tits hanging out, you can be sure they’d be breaking the law and arrested quickly (equivalent of open carry) but somehow it’s perfectly legal to walk down the street with an exposed assault rifle with a crowd of people. Fucking stupid.

    1. You’re right, that is stupid. Time to get rid of the laws banning public nudity.

      1. Yeah, what kind of psychopath would want to ban tits?

      2. So you want to see a bunch of dudes walking down your street swinging their sacks in your kids face? Nice.

    2. NOBODY NEEDS 27 TYPES OF GUNS WHEN A REVOLVER WILL SUFFICE!

      1. NOBODY NEEDS 27 TYPES OF TITS, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OPEN CARRY

        1. Introducing Eccentrica Gallumbits and her six identical sisters…

          1. Pics or it didn’t happen.

          2. Er… eight sisters.

            This is why you stay in school, kids.

    3. How’s the weather there on Planet Stalin? Back here on Earth, in my section of it anyway, it’s not a crime to be completely buck naked (as long as you don’t do it for sexual gratification) or open carry. Or open carry while buck naked.

      1. What if you open carry for sexual gratification?

        1. oh and,… asking for a friend.

        2. Same thing with the other two situations. Cops will arrest you anyways and claim you were doing it for sexual gratification or disturbing the peace. Despite both being legal actions.

      2. So where do you live (in the USA) that you can bust out your flying squirrel in public and not get arrested?

    4. “Leave that shit in your car or at your house or get a licence for concealed carry.”

      Hi. I live in California.

    5. Tits are deadly. I mean think about an erect nipple just poking out your eye. What if she “aimed” them at you? Would you be justified in aiming your “Daringer” at her? Who ought the cops shoot 1st? Absent any active lactation, of course.

      1. Shoot the lactating ones first since they’re useless to me.

        1. I just knew you hated Gaia.

    6. Smells like a big ol’ steamin’ pile of TULPA

    7. Is that you Tulpa?

    8. a woman had her tits hanging out,

      One word: topfreedom.

      1. That might mean something different to Jesse.

    9. a woman had her tits hanging out, you can be sure they’d be breaking the law and arrested quickly

      Not in New York City. In fact, NYC is the exact opposite as you describe, perfectly legal for a woman to walk around topless but illegal for a woman to openly carry a firearm.

      Any more bullshit metaphors you want to lay on us?

      1. …so you can walk around NYC with your dick hanging out? Didn’t think so.

        1. Also you completely missed the metaphor. The metaphor was that a gun is a cock and nobody likes one shoved in your face unless you are prepared for it. I added tits just to throw you a bone…..that was bad.

          1. Nice attempt at re-writing history.

          2. There you go again, Mcgoo
            “a gun is a cock and nobody likes one shoved in your face.” Now, are you a midget or do you walk around on your knees? You may want to dial back the come-hither look too.

            And if you were more accurate in your analogies you would know that a cock is akin to a sword and that is why “vagina” is defined as a sheath in Latin. Don’t let me stop your emoting cause you are on a roll….off a cliff.

    10. If a guy walked down the street with his dick hanging out or a woman had her tits hanging out, you can be sure they’d be breaking the law and arrested quickly (equivalent of open carry) but somehow it’s perfectly legal to walk down the street with an exposed assault rifle with a crowd of people. Fucking stupid.

      RRRRRRRRETARD.

    11. guns get stolen out of cars frequently. Even police have their guns stolen from their patrol cars.

      and try to carry concealed when it’s 90+ out and you’re wearing shorts and a T-shirt. it’s a PITA.

      1. Stick it down the waistband. :-p

        1. I just hide it behind my ginormous… belly.

      1. I now consider myself fucked off.

    12. Why are COPS allowed to open carry??

      They aren’t allowed to walk around with their dicks hanging out, so why do they get to shove their guns in our faces??

      IT’S THE EXACT SAME THING!!

      Every cop I’ve ever seen has sexually assaulted me with their gun visibly holstered to their waist!!

      1. IT’S NOT THE EXACT SAME THING. At least a police officer has gone through some sort of process to give the public some sort of re-assurance that he’s NOT A FUCKING PSYCHOPATH. Not to say that he’s not a psythopath, but probably not. Some dipshit like you carrying a fucking AK down the street scares the fuck out of me.

        1. At least a police officer has gone through some sort of process to give the public some sort of re-assurance that he’s NOT A FUCKING PSYCHOPATH.

          It doesn’t appear to be working. Who accidentally shoots the wrong person more often, open carriers who are police or open carriers who aren’t? (Even taking into account the amount of right people they shoot, this statistic is quite scary.)

        2. Mcgoo says, “…AK down the street scares the fuck out of me.” So you are a pants shitter so afraid of his fellow man and so easily deceived in to thinking he is safe because he does not see a gun. Tell your wife to go a little harder on you with the strap on. You need it.

    13. You own guns, but you call that an “assault rifle”? Either you’re lying or an idiot, please choose one.

    14. Women can walk about with their tits hanging out. If your dick is not erect (leave your pill in the car) that is okay too in some places. Get with the times. Yeah, that gun is so helpful when it is in one’s car. What other rights do you demand I get a license for before exercising according to you, fuck face

  14. even in the crazy situation during Micah Johnson’s violent sniper rampage in Dallas last week, there was no actual situation of “everyone starts shooting.”

    It’s surprising there apparently were no collateral damage victims. I seem to recall at least one incident in which a plainclothes cop was shot (killed?) by a uniformed officer in “confusing” circumstances.

  15. “it’s increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s slung over their shoulder and they’re in a crowd,” he said. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”

    Let me help you out officer.

    If they have the rifle slung over their shoulder, they probably aren’t shooting it.

    Probably.

  16. “Umm, which end of the weapon do you see?”

  17. Historically, though, the NRA openly supported laws against open carry in California in the 1960s, laws inspired by the scare put into the establishment by seeing armed Black Panthers in public.

    The NRA wasn’t really a political organization until the mid 1970s. They were more representing the wishes of American firearms manufacturers in the late ’60s. The grass roots/hardliners took over the org, stopped compromising and by 1991 they were firmly in the corner of the membership.

    1. ^This.

      + back in the 1960s we thought the gun control folks just wanted to keep guns away from criminals, and once reasonable gun laws were in place they would go home.

      Then we learned better. They got the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed, and before the signature was dry they were on the front steps of the Capital holding a press conference saying, “This is a good first step. Now we have the gun owners on the run. Now we can take all their guns away.”

      “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

  18. I keep reading conservative authors comparing Obama’s waffling when it comes to recent shooters to his full-throated condemnation of Dylan Root’s bigotry made manifest by his grisly murders. How, the line goes, can Obama be so myopic when it comes to Muslim bigotry when he very clearly and articulately saw Root for what he is? The answer is clear, of course: he doesn’t want to draw any comparison. He’s politically invested in the fates of Muslims and blacks in a way he wasn’t in that pimply loser. Or so the line goes. I think it’s deeper than that.

    Yes, Obama is a political hack who lies through his teeth to advance his agenda, because he’s a politician and, worse, a progressive, and lies in the service of the progressive cause are merely secret truths. But it’s not because Obama is ideologically blinkered or blithely dishonest that he can’t recognize the similarities. It’s because there does in fact exist a material difference between the atavistic racism of some poor white idiot and the flagrant, purposeful racism of Muslim terrorists and black race-agitators. Even to the latter two racism, with the word’s (relatively) innocuous overtones of bitter, benighted, backward bellyachers, is to miss the existential rupture posed by Muslim clashes with the West, or the nascent racial revolution fomenting under the auspices of the #BLM movement.

    1. No, this is not runamill racism. Dylan Root was symptomatic of exactly one person, Dylan Root, and to call him a racist is putting the tail correctly on the ass’s ass. But Orlando and Dallas are symptoms of a virulent illness. Obama is correct to act aloof: he probably suspects, but could never possibly admit, what he’s helped unleash.

      1. That’s an awful lot of words – and thinking – wasted to call Obama a piece of shit.

        1. I never have a problem meeting the word count.

          1. Dude, I should introduce you to Agile Cyborg

      2. Comrade Obama knows exactly what he’s unleashed. it was totally intentional.

    2. Even to call the latter two racism,

  19. Even where open carry is legal, it’s a very stupid idea. All it accomplishes is to needlessly scare the public, resulting in more gun control laws. It’s like walking around with your penis showing. Everyone who is doing it, please stop.

    1. Even where speaking freely is legal, it’s a very stupid idea. All it accomplishes is to needlessly scare the public, resulting in more speech laws. It’s like walking around with your asshole showing. Everyone who is doing it, please stop.

      1. Even where gay prides parades are legal, it’s a very stupid idea. All it accomplishes is to needlessly scare the heterosexuals, resulting in more anti-sodomy laws. It’s like walking around with your scrotum showing. Everyone who is doing it, please stop.

        1. Oops, I said the same thing as Ceci n’est pas un woodchipper downthread.

    2. Fuck you. With all the heat I pack, sometimes it needs a breather.

    3. Can’t you just go to your safe space where there’s nothing scary? And stay there.

      1. Trolling can be an unhealthy outlet for some, and for a very few it is almost all they look forward to.

        Completely unrelated, Hyp: I am not nearly through with my reading with regards to the topic under discussion last week. I will be visiting friends in Virginia next week and understand that there is an established research center there. I hope to arrange a visit through their “laypersons” liaison and schedule any type of meeting convenient with a sufficiently agreeable person well versed in physics. Do you have any specific (or even general questions) you would like me to ask of him/her?

        Obviously, I need to understand a great deal more, yet I am hopeful that I can meet with a person who will appreciate a layperson’s interest and, moreover, want to convey his or her own accumulated knowledge, albeit in a “suitable for audiences of average intelligence” type of manner.

        1. I remember you said you come to Williamsburg to visit on occasion. Is that your destination this time?

          1. And if it’s JLab, I can probably help with a visit.

            1. Thank you, Lee.

              You have a good memory. I took your suggestion on the restaurant the last time I was in Williamsburg, Virginia, and the buddy I mentioned upthread was much more impressed than I was, and in my opinion he is not easily impressed.

              However, I must maintain my obscurity on the internet for reasons of general prudence, as should we all. Even should “JLab” be my choice for learning more about physics, I wouldn’t want anyone’s help.

              Regardless… Hampton City has many restaurants. Some of the friends I want to see again very much enjoy Thai and Indian recipes/foods. There are many of the former listed and very few of the latter. Do you (or anyone else) have recommendations?

                1. HM,

                  Have you attempted that?

                  1. Me? No. My wife is a trained Thai chef. I leave such things in her competent hands.

                    1. Is the recipe to which you provided a link one of her recommendations or is it one of your own?

                      There also remains my selfish question with regards to “vested” Thai and especially Indian restaurants in or relatively near Hampton, Virginia.

                    2. Thanks for the recipes, HM. I had never heard of toasted rice powder before—though I’m sure I’ve tried it in any of the Thai dishes and just never knew it was there—but I’m looking forward to trying it in my next attempts at Thai food.

                      For the steak, since it already calls for a chimney of coals, would cooking on top of the chimney, a la Alton Brown’s seared tuna recipe, be a good idea? I’ve not tried it with his other innovation of adding a hair dryer blowing air into the bottom of the chimney. Or is the point not to have an ultra-quick sear with a semi-raw interior?

                      C.E., I don’t have any questions for you and your physics guru, but I’m interested in hearing what you eventually find out.

                      FWIW, not a fan of O.C. unless it’s something like hunting, or hiking in the great outdoors etc… I find that either downsizing to something like any of the micro 9s/380s, and/or going to a holster like a Remora, works well for carrying a handgun in shorts/T-shirt conditions. (Link is to Faila Photography’s review of the holster. She’s informative and easy on the eyes.)

        2. Thanks, I can’t think of any questions right off the bat. As I said, I’m not a physicist, I just have a fascination with some of these theories from a layperson’s perspective. I really wish I could understand the math behind some of it, but I’m not even close, sigh. Have fun!

          1. I find much of it fascinating as well, Hyp, and I’ve also found that some of it resonates with my childhood mentality, in the regard that everything we perceive is not the same as everything that is reality. In different words, there is more in reality, Charles, than has been revealed by the science of your times.

            For Frith’s sake, Hyp, the notion of Dark Energy and Dark Matter was formulated by a man named Zwicky.

            Zwicky was the man’s name.

            If you think of anything please let me know.

            1. I still think the ultimate question is ‘why is there anything at all’. I’ve been obsessed with that since a kid.

              1. why is there anything at all

                I shall ask it.

                However, Hyp, it is likely that one or a few individuals will be on hand to answer any questions I might ask, and the answers may differ.

    4. “All it accomplishes…”

      Not being able to conceive others reasons, he believes his list is exhaustive.

    5. Stupid religions are stupid, too.

      Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid.

      Drinking 32 oz. soft drinks on a daily basis is stupid.

      Smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol can make you act stupid.

      Saying stupid things is stupid.

      Do you think people should stop doing all of these things just to appease the stupid authoritarians?

      A couple months back, I was in Vegas, and I walked into a Chipotle. There was a gangbanger in line ahead of me–all in red. He was open carrying a Glock on his belt. Three cops off duty came in for lunch behind me, and the craziest thing happened: absolutely nothing. The gangbanger ordered his food; the cops ordered their food. They ate. They left. That was it.

      Later that week, I saw an old cowboy in a grocery store open carrying. Big handlebar mustache and a cowboy hat. He had a beautifully engraved 1911 on his belt–slung low. Chromed, shiny as all get out. Hundreds of other grocery shoppers milling around him.

      Again, nothing happened. It was almost as though freedom is more acceptable to average strangers than you might imagine. Just because the media presents certain things a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the way average people react to them.

      1. Tell this story to a European.

        Watch them squirm.

      2. “A couple months back, I was in Vegas, and I walked into a Chipotle. ”

        That’s exactly what I picture you doing in Vegas.

        1. There are only so many places I can eat that don’t use soy.

          Yeah, I seek out Chipotle. It’s one of the few places where I can eat.

          1. Does the prime rib buffet have soy?

            1. I have it on good authority the distilled water is soy-free.

              (It should be gluten-free, too.)

        2. AND I LOVE IT.

          1. Now you’re just lying.

            Food allergies is an OK excuse. Loving it? That’s just not believable.

            1. Psh. I bet you don’t think deep dish is real pizza either.

              1. I love casserole, and I call it by its proper name.

      3. Where is this Lake Wobegon where men all open carry, women don’t make a fuss about it, and children are all above average marksmen?

        1. Garrison?

      4. Man, that’s a really great anecdote.

      5. “A couple months back, I was in Vegas, and I walked into a Chipotle. ”
        Chipotle? That is obviously a demographic that does not scare easily. How many holsters with Pepto Bismol?

    6. Fuck off slaver.

    7. …or maybe the more people are exposed to things that they find scary or strange the more able they are to understand them and handle them more effectively in the future.

      1. Nope. We’re all 6. Veggies are the devil, and so help me if you even try to slowly push spinach into my diet.

    8. Hey what do you have against junk-flashing? You a homophobe???

  20. Yeah, people shouldn’t be allowed to do things that might scare people or say things that might make people feel bad.

    1. I find people with tattoos to be scary. Also, black people, really scary. Can we just ban those groups from the public?

      1. And fatties, let us not forget fatties.

        1. Asian-Black, retarded, tattooed, Muslim, albino, women fatties who speak Provencale.

          Who needs them amirite?

        2. I like to keep 1 or 2 fatties around in case of a Donner Party situation.

          1. For warmth?

            1. I suppose you could extract some whale oil for heat, so I’m gonna say yes.

          2. I knew there was a reason why I was considering letting Triggly Puff into my bunker.

            1. Feed her acorns. Triggly Puff Iberico.

  21. Let’s try something:

    “Look, gays, here’s the thing. Yes, it’s legal for you to marry, and, yes, it’s legal for you to do things like kiss or hug or hold hands in public. But, you see, context matters. If you’re in a gay bar or LA or somewhere and you see two people of the same sex hold hands or kiss or something, it doesn’t strike you as odd. But, if you’re in, say, east Texas, or a retirement home, or near a Catholic church it could really offend or even scare people. So all we’re saying is just show some discretion. Don’t be so, you know, openly gay around people who don’t like gay people. It’s just a question of respecting their feelings. They’ll come around eventually as long as they aren’t reminded of, you know, gay things.”

    1. Makes sense to me. If you’re looking for public approval of your hobbies, it’s best to avoid displaying in public those aspects of your hobbies that annoy people or alarm them.

      1. Yeah, makes total sense. People will eventually respect your legally-guaranteed rights as long as you never actually exercise them. Good plan.

        1. Keep rubbing peoples’ noses in stuff they don’t like and you do. They will love you for it eventually.

    2. That’s totally different, for some reason I haven’t been told yet.

    3. If the power of two gay dudes kissing in public could potentially KILL me than I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a law that requires them to do that shit in the privacy of their own homes. Get it?

      1. And who’s going to enforce the law? A bunch of people with guns. Openly. In public.

        1. Yes, a bunch of people that have been trained to properly use a gun and enforce the laws, as is done is civil society. Not a bunch of dipshit vigilantes.

  22. Okay smart-alecs. Explain this:

    http://www.foxsports.com/nba/s…..sed-071216

    1. Most of the competitive cube solvers determine their moves before they start the puzzle. Now if he were blindfolded and then given a cube to solve, that would be a little freaky.

      1. The blindfold part would make zero difference, it’s based on a formula of turns in different directions. The colors don’t matter. No matter where it starts out, you can solve it with the correct formula.

    2. A large portion of his brain is dedicated to that task, and he’ll never live a normal life.

      Does that explanation satisfy you?

      1. No. I need. Want. Crave. More.

    3. There’s a formula for doing it, you wouldn’t need to see the cube, so that would make no difference.

      For instance, it goes something like

      hold the cube in hand

      rotate top row counterclockwise 2 times, rotate left row down 1 time, rotate middle row clockwise 2 turns, etc, etc.

      I memorized the formula back when this thing first came out and could do it in 3 minutes or less. But 6 seconds? Sounds impossible to me.

      1. I’m thinking it took around 75 moves to do it the way I was doing it. I still can’t see how he could do this. He must have come up with the ultimate move.

        1. So if I hand you a solved cube and you do these 75 moves it will be backed to solved but if I hand you a fucked up cube and you do these 75 moves it won’t be back to the fucked up way I handed it to you it will instead be solved? Not buying it.

          1. Yes, it doesn’t matter what you do with the cube, what position it is in. Once you have your formula memorized, it can be solved in the exact same number of moves, every time. The only thing then is how fast your fingers can move without messing up. The kids seems to have very fast fingers also, so that helps. Good monocle polisher there, no doubt.

            1. I’m still not getting it, if a solved cube ends up solved after these moves how can a messed up cube not end up in the same messed up position after the same moves. maybe I’m missing something but I don’t believe there is anything inherent about the solved position, the cube doesn’t ‘know’ when it’s all in order. Like a deck of cards doesn’t ‘know’ when it’s in order, you can’t (without some cheat) take any mixed up deck and do the same x number of moves and put it back in order.

              1. Dude, go to Youtube. Search for ‘Rubik’s cube formula blindfolded’. I can’t explain the math to you of how it works, it just works. Back when this thing first came out, there was a 14 year old Japanese kid who figured out how to do it and the formula got posted in a a magazine. Me and some of my friends memorized it just to freak people out by doing it. It was fun for a while. We would hand the cube to someone and they would fuck with it for as long as they wanted The results are always the exact same no matter how fucked up the cube is.

                1. If you’re interested in the math, here you go.

                  1. Thanks, HM.

                2. Watch the guy here. He does it several times. As you can clearly see, he’s using a memorized formula, he can’t see the cube, and he knows exactly when it’s solved without seeing it, because it always comes on the exact same number of moves! I’ve done this thousands of time, I was just never any way near that fast.

                  Blind Rubik’s solve

                  1. And he studies the mixed up cube for 8 sec before he pulls down the blindfold and starts, I’m not saying that it’s impossible to solve a cube blindfolded, certainly you can memorize some things and then use a system which changes based on the starting position. I am saying that there is not one universal formula of exactly the same moves that will solve any cube. I did google solve Rubik’s cube blindfolded and every site mentioned some form of ‘mapping’ the starting cube.

                    1. There are different methods. Consider that the way we did it, it’s pretty much impossible to do it that fast. Under 3 minutes was really good. I think the fastest time I ever saw anyone do it was still over 2 minutes. The way he’s doing it, it obviously takes some knowledge of the original position of the cube, but he still does it completely blindfolded and knows the exact number of moves it’s going to take. He was also doing it in like 20 seconds. I’m sure it can be done regardless of knowledge of starting cube position, but the formula is obviously much longer. I’m sure you’ll find this if you just search it online some more. It’s not impossible to do it without looking at the cube at all, I’ve seen it done too many times.

                      Read this, it might help:

                      No eyes

                      It’s simple: we use algorithms that affect only a few pieces and leave the rest of the cube completely unchanged. Commutators, special permutation and orientation algorithms, things like that. We don’t even bother memorizing what the cube looks like; we encode it into a series of simple swaps they need to execute to put pieces back in the right place

                    2. All right, if what you are saying is possible then this should be a cakewalk, I place two coins on the table, what exact series of moves can you use to leave them both heads up. no looking at the coins and you don’t get to stop if you happen to get it right, I want the exact formula i.e. – flip coin one twice, then flip coin two, then flip coin one again… etc-. that will leave both coin heads up every time no matter how I first set them, and again no looking. two coins, two possible values, should be child’s play.

                    3. Ok, you win. It’s not possible.

                    4. Sounds like a “heap game” like Nim or Tower of Hanoi. From the standpoint of mathematics, both of those games are “solved”, I don’t see why your game wouldn’t be either.

                    5. From what I remember of NIM it’s a progression thing, where once you get to a certain value you can’t lose, the tower thing looks like learning a system, but in each you must KNOW the value/position of the playing pieces at some point. NIM doesn’t work if you don’t know the value of the count, the tower thing wouldn’t work if the disc started in a different order..

                    6. “Ok, you win. It’s not possible.”

                      The way you’ve described it?

                      No it isn’t.

                      Hyperbole is right, there is no universal formula.

                      There are algoritihms, however, that when properly applied, can solve any cube.

                      However, if you throw all of the algoritihms at an unsolved cube without examining it, you’re wasting a ton of time and moves.

                    7. @A frilly pink thing
                      I second this.
                      The way he describes it is impossible. There is no one single magic algorithm that will solve any cube from any unsolved state. You always must at least look at it first.

                      In any case, the video he linked of a blindfolded solve clearly shows the guy studying the cube for about 8 seconds before he proceeds to begin solving. Why take the time to study if if there is one magic algorithm that will solve it from any state. If such a thing really existed, then I would already be a speed cuber.

                    8. Except that the coins aren’t connected to each other the way the layers of the cube are.

                      With two coins there are four possible answers, depending on the original position:
                      1. Right and left coins heads, 0 moves.
                      2. Right heads, left tails, 1 move, flip left coin.
                      3. Right tails, left heads, 1 move, flip right coin.
                      4. Right and left coins tails, 2 moves, flip both coins.

                      With the cube, however, each move changes the relationship of every segment.

        2. Do you by any chance have trouble making eye contact?

          1. What?

          2. There’s only hundreds of videos on youtube showing how to solve a cube blind folded. Back when we did it, we didn’t call it blind folded. It’s a damn formula, you don’t need to even look at the fucking cube!

            1. Do you find you talk for long stretches of time about a hobby of yours without noticing that people are getting bored?

              1. Christ, no! This is HnR. Don’t you remember Sloopy the Inca occupying 90 percent of a thread having a discussion with himself over the minutiae of college football? I’ve stored a few of those as a text file on my Kindle for when I have problems falling asleep.

                1. So what you’re saying is we’re all diagnosable.

                  1. It’s a hazard of the Internet.

              2. Then don’t read it and continue on down thread? Obviously some people are interested or they wouldn’t still be posted about it. Run along now, skippy.

        1. I guess there’s been some advancements in the moves since 1980, lol. But yeah, it’s all based on rotating the rows a certain number of turns in different directions and various cube flips in different directions. He’s still doing it that exact same way. So he could do it blindfolded just as fast.

      2. There is no formula to solve a cube w/o knowing where each piece is, and its orientation at the start.
        You absolutely do need to have a look at the cube first.

        What is going on here is either
        a) Its faked and the kid has memorized a single scramble and is undoing that scramble.

        b) The kid memorizes the position and orientation of all 20 movable pieces of the cube and is able to keep track of where each turn moves each piece. A surprising number of people are capable of this.

        What really blows my mind are the people who will take multiple scrambled cubes (usually around 10, but I’ve seen many more than that), study them and then blindfold solve all of them.

        The way you do it fast (< 30 seconds) is either by learning many algorithms, or by using intuitive methods (Petrus method for example, but it does use a few algorithms to OLL and PLL)Around one minute averages are my best using a basic layer method and only six algorithms (and their mirror versions) which is about as good as can be expected with only knowing so few. You also end up with an atrocious move count. Well over 100 usually, mostly due to the last layer.While it would be nice to do it faster, at the end of the day, just being able to solve it at all, even if it takes 1-2 minutes makes people think you are some kind genius. Bring out a higher order cube (4x4x4, 5x5x5, and so on), megaminx, or a ghost cube and you might cause their heads to explode.

  23. They don’t seem to be confused about the people in blue costumes open-carrying, so the answer is clearly for everyone legally carrying a weapon to get a blue costume.

  24. Oh, fuckin look, the law and order boys and girls are gittin’ anti-Murica squirrely. Not fuckin surprised- their FOP team is, in fact, a goddamn international brotherhood of socialists. PJmedia and their goddamn mental midget ceo and law’n ordah team must be shitting solid Jesus bars ’bout now. FUCKING morons.

    1. AC! Missed you love you, guy.

      1. Asian spaceships swerving with hot Asian pussy flown into the house of commoditous… sorry bout the house, bro. Asian sweetness attack!

  25. I assume the fatuous open carry / public nudity analogy is the new talking points issued to the gun-grabbing trolls.

    1. Seems like it. Just because something’s legal doesn’t mean you should, like, actually do it!

    2. The Naked Gun 4: Nakeder and Gunnier

    3. Let’s try another one. You have the right to take a shit. Perhaps you might like to exercise this right in public, so should there be no laws about people taking shits in the middle of the street? I don’t think people should go to jail for it, but for fucks sake man, don’t shit in the street. The second amendment doesn’t give people the right to wave guns around in public. It’s almost a form of entitlement…..”I’m entitled to carry a gun wherever the fuck I want whenever I want.” Bullshit.

      1. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

        1. That’s fine. You can walk around all fucking day on your property with your gun and shoot your house or your car.

      2. Well, we know we can count on you to conceal your shitting in your pants; however, I am not so sure you won’t be waving it around. You seem a bit skittish and prone to changing your argument….”waving guns around in public.”

        Entitlement
        A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: “fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor”

        Natural Right
        Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

        Learn the difference.

  26. I’m sitting down the bar from two extremely nerdy men and their nerdy Asian girlfriend and thinking… you three are one morbidly obese po-faced friend from being the middle-age version of Steve and his crew from American Dad.

  27. Cops sign up to be international guild and almost fucking nothing is writ about this process. Fact is, unions are useful in a minor way if your family works for one but fucking super goddamn awful in a major way called international tool of the socialist movement that very few fucking writers of the free world actually understand… mainly because the fucking one world order is considered a goddamned trait of conspiratorialists and shit… however… its viper tongue infects everything and all the channels and realities they like to project on the weak.

    The order existed way before us and will exist way after… Guilds are the key.

  28. If you think there’s a strong chance you might wander while open carrying into a mass public shooting in which your carrying puts you at risk of being mistaken for a mass shooter, you might want to personally rethink the practice. (Though it doesn’t seem a particularly rational fear, comparatively.)

    Isn’t that precisely the time you would want a gun? Is it more reasonable to bring your gun to a church social or to a political rally that has a realistic chance of being attacked by either those that disagree with you or by the police?
    Unless you’re just doing open carry for social signaling and precisely to make the other side feel uncomfortable, which is indeed, just rude.

    1. Don’t let logic infect your mind, DenverJ.

  29. The argument against it is usually along the lines of: open-carrying is too show-offy and potentially alienating to the cause of widening the rights to carry guns in public.

    Soo … you shouldn’t open carry when it is legal to do so, because that will hurt the ability to get even more open carry rights recognized … because openly carrying will scare people who are afraid of guns and who already want to confiscate all non-government weapons, much less expand existing gun rights that are recognized.

    Fuck that “logic”.

    1. This is something I can’t get behind

      1. I caught wind of what you did there

    2. Fart in?

      I’m available on a contract basis.

      1. This must be why Ken has been eating a lot of Chipotle.

        1. That would also be an acceptable excuse.

    3. Remember, this is the level that people deciding on a major party candidate are at: protest farting. These people are the chosen representatives for helping decide the head of the executive branch of the United States. When people wonder why you don’t think money in politics is the biggest issue, when they wonder why you say we’re all fucked, bring this up to illustrate your points.

  30. Kinda OT, following a link to a link to a link led me here.

    Shit don’t change much in the criminal justice system.

    1. Wow.

      I still miss Balko, too.

  31. The fallen angels in the valleys of marbled corruption
    don’t give a goddamn fuck about the risen living powers
    that prance across the lamb hostels in the form of headlines…
    gigantic humans matter as much as Newton’s nose fingerings…
    a swift glitch can switch change ups that even cost a total generation
    memories but i guess motherfuckers out there don’t like this
    sort of random goddamn bullshit. neither do i. so may as well check out for once
    and stop playing the attention game that leads to minor eruptions
    in the character fields.
    Fuck digital connection.
    it is weak and empty
    and simplistic and distracts
    the engaged from finding their
    pianos in their minds!

  32. As I understand it the cops didn’t shoot any of the open carry people and none of them shot any cops or bystanders…correct?

    1. Stop, gunz are scary mmkay??

  33. fuck the binary ethers
    numbered clouds are swift and unrelenting
    swarming mists like clicking rivers
    fuck being here
    my fingers suck like
    jaded spaces and aliveness trapped
    in the captured visions of moments
    centered on the clicks of existence wanderers.
    fuck being here
    fuck me for being here
    i will find new cosmos not found in the interuniverse

  34. fuck the binary ethers
    numbered clouds are swift and unrelenting
    swarming mists like clicking rivers
    fuck being here
    my fingers suck like
    jaded spaces and aliveness trapped
    in the captured visions of moments
    centered on the clicks of existence wanderers.
    fuck being here
    fuck me for being here
    i will find new cosmos not found in the interuniverse

  35. just shoot where everybody else is shooting. if the shooting doesn’t stop, try again. the important hing to keep in mind is you’re police…you get a pass/medal, or at worst a paid vacation, no matter who you shoot.

    1. *thing!

      “hing” might be a thing, but it’s not the “thing” i meant. my apologies.

  36. We should start by making it illegal for police to openly carry firearms.

  37. I’d like to offer a parallel to this line of reasoning by the police.
    We know that digital communication devices and encryption can be used by terrorists, hackers and criminals in general. We know that the police and various government agencies find it confusing to have good guys and bad guys using encryption.
    But we don’t conclude that encryption should be banned. To the contrary, we recognize that civilians and their use encryption should be protected.

  38. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.” Who besides the bad guy and the police were shooting?

  39. Since Cell phones have confused police in the past we should also outlaw them as well. Also since holding a thumb and finger like a gun can get you shot maybe we can have a digit turn in by the police. they remove thumbs and fingers and they give you a gift card.

    Makes as much sense.

  40. my classmate’s aunt makes $80 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $18306 just working on the computer for a few hours.click for this website

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.55easyline.com

  41. Showbox Download, Showbox Apk Download, Showbox App Download: Nowadays technology has brought a lot of changes in our lives, especially in education and communication.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.