No. Because you posted that list of nine examples and their bullshit description as evidence. You didn't post any "etc" evidence, just the bs.
...except you're intentionally misrepresenting the post. and the conversation.
ETC.
the point was that "data that is ignored: any armed civilian helping police,
etc" - which, in normal English conversation means: the data that is ignored is the armed civilians helping police,
or armed civilians stopping a shooting,
and any other relevant armed civilian related argument stopping a crime (hence the "etc" addition to the comment)
the fact that you specifically chose to interpret the list as the first mentioned "armed civilian helping police" while ignoring contextual quoted material in my specific callout in the search demonstrates your bias either against the poster or the information.
It's plain English. When you choose to ignore relevant information like that all coherence and sense gets lost. Is that necessary for you, in avoiding some stuff?
and I didn't post bullsh*t descriptions.
you did.
I specifically said
"
this is an example of his "cherry picking" (or selective attention/confirmation bias) to present a case for a personal belief".
This means, in normal parlance, that he has specifically chosen to ignore readily available information that armed civilians have stopped shootings while making an argument that armed civilians: "use their mouths to defend their guns and their access to guns far more than they use guns to defend human life" and "at the end of the day, the "protect and defend" argument is emptier than a winter rain barrel!"
so... the question I have is: why would you attribute your own "bullshit description as evidence" to me?
No. Policemen and military reservists and professionally trained armed guards at churches and malls are all law abiding citizens.
thank you for clarifying. Off duty specifically means they're civilians acting on their own behalf (with certain exceptions for the active duty military member - they can act on their own behalf as a normal citizen but are required to maintain a code of conduct as well as specifically called out to abide by UCMJ and local laws under legal order with certain conditions. technically, they are not "civilians" but unless specfically in uniform, they're treated as civilians until they've legally establishing their credentials as being active duty - which can only be established by local military or DOD contact. See:
UCMJ)
yes, it is.
The only possible example of an armed person with no professional weapons training stopping a shooting by using a weapon in that entire list was the bartender with the shotgun
You're assuming that weapons training and a specific job change your legal status. it doesn't (except under special circumstance called out in local, state and federal law).
When you're not in uniform (or acting specifically for the local, state, or federal government, under special condition, in civilian attire) you're considered a civilian or resident and not a person of authority, unless specific legal conditions are met (as in specifically calling out and establishing your authority by presentation of credentials that are active and legal - a retired cop has absolutely no authority to utilise a badge under these circumstances).
Those off-duty cops or military are no different than any other citizen except for their previous training, which the training argument can only be used conditionally and under special circumstance in court, such as a circumstantial argument to establish motivation,
etc. so when not in uniform, a police officer has the same limited rights as any other citizen when it comes to personal responsibility and behavior. and when not on a military installation, an off duty military cop is the same excepting his authority is typically limited to the military branch and installation assigned, yet can act to assist local authority once recognized and allowed. military members in general, not assigned to LE or similar status, are also the same. The only exception to the rule in the military is medical, first responder and fire department personnel assisting or providing medical aid in a medical emergency (special federal considerations and legal protection are involved - see UCMJ)
So your posted evidence was bullshit. It refutes nothing, and illustrates the invalidity of your criticism of other people's bs
again, see above. you're intentionally misrepresenting the post. and the conversation.
ETC.
It speaks directly to my point: you can't tell bs from evidence for your own argument, and that illustrates my point about the bothsides noise.
Which in turn lends weight to the emphasis of the inexplicability of all this - this needs explanation, this bothsides jamb. And by the evidence, cowardice is a likely aspect of that explanation.
1- it actually validates my point about bias
2- this subject needs people who will challenge each point and piece of evidence, just like any good criminal investigator, to validate the evidence and present a coherent detailed analysis of the situation in order to make sound decisions. Thus far, you've presented evidence that you attribute to me, ignored the argument and projected your beliefs onto my specific statements that are contrary to your statement of belief, then misrepresent the argument and conversation for your purpose of "bothsides jam" to demonstrate your refusal to accept dissention - which is one of my points about bias and refusal to accept refutation
3- the "inexplicability of all this" comes directly from "cherry picking" (or selective attention/confirmation bias) to present a case for a personal belief" and my other points, which are explained above and in this post, again, for your intentional bias to ignore, distort, misattribute, or conflate.
That makes no sense. Racism is a foundational aspect of US gun culture, regardless of how it influences other cultures. And that's an obvious entry port for cowardice and its influences.
please demonstrate how it's a "foundational aspect".
the "foundational aspect" is due to local and national belief and not limited to US gun culture, therefore it can be stated as a "foundational aspect" for the culture, society or national image, but not specific just to gun culture, as it has widespread influence even among the non-racist population (such as: legal limitations by law to race)
No, you can't. Why are posting this gibberish? It isn't even making sense on your terms: Nothing you posted has anything to do with any anecdotes being false or erroneous, and you can't "overthrow" a factual and accurate anecdote by "argument or proof". Surely that is obvious, even to you?
to use your own words: "You can "explain" your error or deliberate deflection or whatever you were trying to pull all you want", it doesn't change the facts presented, linked, referenced and repeatedly explained for you
no point in repeating it because you will still refuse to accept the facts presented
I see what you post, and it makes no sense
the problem seems to be more your intentional refusal to accept information that directly contradicts you
that is demonstrated more than once - in this post alone
like above, or this comment:
Because that is what you are communicating: the fact that this kind of stuff makes sense to you, your opinions come from this kind of verbal splashing around, and there is an entire "side" of gun rights enthusiasts that you can go to for support - Buzzfeed speaks your language.
your assumption that clearly stated comments are irrational, nonsensical or some other descriptor you've used, then a personal attack about my specific abilities (verbal splashing around) followed by an inferred attack using Buzzfeed as your pejorative, regardless of presented information repeatedly misattributed and intentionally misinterpreted,
etc, by you.
.
for more information
other than the already linked above, should you require additional help regarding the legal status of off duty LEO's (
etc), you can look
here, or at State, Local law.
