Multiple officers killed at Dallas protest over police killings

[Bornubus]

One more thing about science - before the arrival of Islam we have universities which not only had Indians but foreigners even Arabs. They came here to study Mathematics, medicine, architecture, astronomy etc.

Famous Musalman scholar Abu Mashar lived in Banaras for years and several indian scholars were present in the courts of Khalifa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ma'shar_al-Balkhi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikramashila

When Bakhtiyar khilji burned nalanda university, its library burned for days, thus these Islamic invader closed the glorious chapter of academic excellence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita

 

[hit&run]

Don't confuse Implementation with potential.

Sure.

Shoulda Woulda Coulda.

If Blacks have genuine reasons, and I believe they do, then they themselves will escalate it.

Any interference by a third party will not only abridge their movement but third party will suffer back home because they will be dealing with Americans who topples governments if not nations, just for fun.

We should watch and identify what they are doing to Black population and any other minority for that matter.

At present; to me, its only about earning more counter points when they come out to preach us on moralities, intolerance and hurl stereotypical abuses, especially online.

Rest of the things are far fetched, heck I have yet to see any Indian go to their forums and show them the mirror when same Indian sob and moan in front of them cleaning Indian linen, asking for their expert opinions.

I mean we should do what we can do which to me is sharpen your knowledge, bookmark these events and use it when we are called out. Nothing more Nothing less.

 

[hit&run]

............................................................................

 

[pmaitra]

From a different source, the Dallas shooter was using a Saiga AK-74 Rifle:

Spoiler: GRAPHIC: Body of the shooter after he was killed.

Article: http://lawofficer.com/2016/07/exclusive-photo-of-the-saiga-ak-74-rifle-used-at-dallas-shooting/

 

[spikey360]

Yes not all africans are black; additionally not all Sub-Saharans are black either.

The original inhabitants of southern Africa are the Khoisan people. They have brown skin and interestingly they don't look very much like what people generally have in mind when the say "negro."

Some of these pictures actually have a hint of "mongoloid." I wonder why....

Interesting.
I take it that you are implying the mongoloid features by the high cheek bone and narrow eye slits. I do not know why Khoisan people have this, but it can certainly be explained why mongoloids have this feature.
The high cheek bone exists to narrow down the eye slits, the narrowing of the eye slits occur to prevent/minimise glare from sun-rays reflecting from the ice surface.
Note that these two features are not unique to mongoloids. The Americans (Red Indians) also have these features, as well as the Eskimos(clearly mongoloids).

Note however the lip structure of the Khoisan people is unmistakably of African descent/Negrito descent.

 

[spikey360]

No wonder this guy chose Saiga.
If you want to kill American Law Enforcement officials - always choose Russian.

 

[pmaitra]

This is my first opinionated post in this thread.

It is the right of every* US citizen to be able to bear firearms. The purpose of this is explained in the quote below:

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

Source: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

* - There are exceptions that have been introduced over a period of time.​

It is true that there have been way too many instances of excessive use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. The other side of the story is, given that people have the right to bear, and many do bear arms, the law enforcement officers have little incentive to be lenient when a situation escalates. Nothing in this world can be dearer than life, as they say.

What happened in Dallas should not have happened. The excessive use of force, oftentimes against blacks, should also not happen. A lot of things should not happen, but we don't live in a perfect world.

I want to point out that in India, where it is a privilege, not a right, to bear arms, criminals always find a way to have firearms, while the law abiding citizens are left at the mercy of the law enforcement for protection, who are not always effective, and might as well become an instrument of state oppression of the people.

It is necessary, therefore, to understand, that America is incomplete without the Second Amendment, and it is there to stay for the foreseeable future.

An interesting link:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers

 

[spikey360]

^^ Yeah, I do not understand the libtard obsession with Gun Control. Knives can be used to kill people as well.
Islamists have killed hundreds in Xinjiang by knife attack multiple times, in the last 3 years.

 

[Navnit Kundu]

I want to point out that in India, where it is a privilege, not a right, to bear arms

Even that privilege comes with a caveat that we have to submit our guns to the nearest police station one month before elections. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who have acquired it illegally, so it defeats the purpose of owning a gun legally since the government statute mandates that those of us who lawfully own guns ought to voluntarily disarm ourselves during a time when the possibility of violence is very high. It's like telling someone they can have an umbrella only when its not raining.

Indians need more gun rights, but not universal gun rights, because this 'equal' right will be overshadowed by the fact that we live in an era of economic inequality, so even if the law allows everyone to own a gun, only the rich ones will be able to afford it and it will invariably skew the balance of power further, instead of making everyone secure. The best middle path is for public institutions to be allowed (rather, mandated) to have guns. So schools, colleges, libraries, offices, hospitals should be mandated to have armed guards, so that if there is a riot, the normal population which does not want to be a part of it can simply go about their business knowing that they will be safe in their schools and offices and economic activity doesn't come to a standstill.

 

[spikey360]

Indians need more gun rights, but not universal gun rights, because this 'equal' right will be overshadowed by the fact that we live in an era of economic inequality, so even if the law allows everyone to own a gun, only the rich ones will be able to afford it and it will invariably skew the balance of power further, instead of making everyone secure.

I'd have to disagree. Trigger/Revolver and Rifling are very old technologies. Guns can be made even in village workshops, perhaps one-shots, but they can be made. So what we require is universal arms rights, not just guns.

 

[Razor]

Interesting.
I take it that you are implying the mongoloid features by the high cheek bone and narrow eye slits. I do not know why Khoisan people have this, but it can certainly be explained why mongoloids have this feature.
The high cheek bone exists to narrow down the eye slits, the narrowing of the eye slits occur to prevent/minimise glare from sun-rays reflecting from the ice surface.
Note that these two features are not unique to mongoloids. The Americans (Red Indians) also have these features, as well as the Eskimos(clearly mongoloids).

Note however the lip structure of the Khoisan people is unmistakably of African descent/Negrito descent.

It is not just the "high cheek bone, slit eyes", there is a general mongoloid appearance on their (Khoisan) face.

Also I have seen many Chinese/SE Asian with thick lips; what really differentiates them from Khoisan is "the hair"
Sub Saharans are always (at least afaik) "nappy haired."

-------
The reason for slit eyes is not certain, but one of the reasons is the one you gave.
Another popular one is these people originated from the sand storm affected arid desert type areas of Gobi desert-Taklamakan desert area (the whole of NW China, Mongolia and Northern China (except NE China) is arid) Khoisan range is also kinda similar (Kalahari desert region.)
Another reason advocated is sexual preference for neoteny. Any case the reason is not yet clear. Perhaps it is a combination of two or more reasons.

 

[Razor]

This is my first opinionated post in this thread.

It is the right of every* US citizen to be able to bear firearms. The purpose of this is explained in the quote below:

Source: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

* - There are exceptions that have been introduced over a period of time.​

It is true that there have been way too many instances of excessive use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. The other side of the story is, given that people have the right to bears, and many do bear arms, the law enforcement officers have little incentive to be lenient when a situation escalates. Nothing in this world can be dearer than life, as they say.

What happened in Dallas should not have happened. The excessive use of force, oftentimes against blacks, should also not happen. A lot of things should not happen, but we don't live in a perfect world.

I want to point out that in India, where it is a privilege, not a right, to bear arms, criminals always find a way to have firearms, while the law abiding citizens are left at the mercy of the law enforcement for protection, who are not always effective, and might as well become an instrument of state oppression of the people.

It is necessary, therefore, to understand, that America is incomplete without the Second Amendment, and it is there to stay for the foreseeable future.

An interesting link:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers

I used to be pro-gun, pro-NRA, these days though I'm ambivalent (nope I haven't gone libtard, far from it.) Maybe each society should figure out what's best for it.

From simply a crime perspective and not from a terrorism/ethnic conflict angle, is it possible, for example, to compare Japan and the US wrt to firearm regulations and its effects on society? What would be the conclusions of such a comparison?
Also studies have shown (I don't know if these studies were unbiased) that a person who does not practice using their firearm will not be able to operate it effectively under stress conditions and might end up harming by-standers. So as @Navnit Kundu said, armed guards may be a better option but then excessive armed presence could lead to police-state-like conditions. So what's best for a society??

Also @spikey360 small arms are considerable more dangerous than knives and their only purpose, unlike knives/cars etc, is deterrence and/or incapacitation.

 

[Razor]

I'd have to disagree. Trigger/Revolver and Rifling are very old technologies. Guns can be made even in village workshops, perhaps one-shots, but they can be made. So what we require is universal arms rights, not just guns.

Yup it is pretty easy to make firearms in a tool shop. Even inbreds in paki mountain regions make all kinds of firearms (granted, quality is inferior.) Must get the ammo, though.

 

[spikey360]

I used to be pro-gun, pro-NRA, these days though I'm ambivalent (nope I haven't gone libtard, far from it.) Maybe each society should figure out what's best for it.

From simply a crime perspective and not from a terrorism/ethnic conflict angle, is it possible, for example, to compare Japan and the US wrt to firearm regulations and its effects on society? What would be the conclusions of such a comparison?
Also studies have shown (I don't know if these studies were unbiased) that a person who does not practice using their firearm will not be able to operate it effectively under stress conditions and might end up harming by-standers. So as @Navnit Kundu said, armed guards may be a better option but then excessive armed presence could lead to police-state-like conditions. So what's best for a society??

Also @spikey360 small arms are considerable more dangerous than knives and their only purpose, unlike knives/cars etc, is deterrence and/or incapacitation.

Absolutely spot on with the Japan vs US example.
I saw a docu somewhere, do not remember exactly where. They tried to understand why violence was so rampant in US but almost non-existent in Canada where gun laws are pretty lax, almost at par with the US. They concluded the reason to be TV programming. American shows tends to show stylised, glorified violence whilst the same cannot be said for Canada. As for Japan, they concluded that even though the TV programming was as violent as that of US, lack of access to guns made all the difference.
So yeah, popular entertainment has played a major role in shaping gun violence in US.

Agree with the firearms and stress factor. Handling a gun is no child's play. Pretty much like driving, if you aren't practising enough, you'll get rusty. So, having an arm alone won't be able to save you, one has got to know how to use it effectively in the moment of utter danger. Disagree with the knife observation though. Knives can be used as deterrence as well (of course, not against an assailant carrying firearms, but in general, any attacker/threat) However, I must say that protecting yourself with a knife is far tougher than that with the gun.

 

[pmaitra]

I used to be pro-gun, pro-NRA, these days though I'm ambivalent (nope I haven't gone libtard, far from it.) Maybe each society should figure out what's best for it.

From simply a crime perspective and not from a terrorism/ethnic conflict angle, is it possible, for example, to compare Japan and the US wrt to firearm regulations and its effects on society? What would be the conclusions of such a comparison?

I am in favour of the Second Amendment. The US was made independent by revolutionaries, and the US Constitution was made by revolutionaries. Their greatness lies in the fact that they gave the citizens the very power that they themselves used to overthrow the tyrannical British government. It is necessary to guarantee the possibility of retribution in the event the government becomes a tyranny. The beauty about the US Constitution is that it legalizes that.

Now, one may argue this will give rise to civil war. I would disagree. There can be no civil war if the people are content. Another argument can be made that guns will increase the possibility of gun related deaths. This is true. The fact of the matter is that freedom comes at a cost.

Imagine India's First War of Independence, or as the Brits call it Sepoy Mutiny. We went as far as installing our old king in Delhi. How did we manage that? Well, we managed that because the sepoys had guns. It is no surprise that the British brought about significant gun controls thereafter.

Also studies have shown (I don't know if these studies were unbiased) that a person who does not practice using their firearm will not be able to operate it effectively under stress conditions and might end up harming by-standers. So as @Navnit Kundu said, armed guards may be a better option but then excessive armed presence could lead to police-state-like conditions. So what's best for a society??

Also @spikey360 small arms are considerable more dangerous than knives and their only purpose, unlike knives/cars etc, is deterrence and/or incapacitation.

A person who practices using firearms will be able to operate it. It is common for Americans to regularly go to the shooting range and practice. Many also regularly go hunting.

 

[Razor]

I am in favour of the Second Amendment. The US was made independent by revolutionaries, and the US Constitution was made by revolutionaries. Their greatness lies in the fact that they gave the citizens the very power that they themselves used to overthrow the tyrannical British government. It is necessary to guarantee the possibility of retribution in the event the government becomes a tyranny. The beauty about the US Constitution is that it legalizes that.

Now, one may argue this will give rise to civil war. I would disagree. There can be no civil war if the people are content. Another argument can be made that guns will increase the possibility of gun related deaths. This is true. The fact of the matter is that freedom comes at a cost.

Imagine India's First War of Independence, or as the Brits call it Sepoy Mutiny. We went as far as installing our old king in Delhi. How did we manage that? Well, we managed that because the sepoys had guns. It is no surprise that the British brought about significant gun controls thereafter.

#civil war: People can always be content or can never be content. For eg. in the US this is ensured by distracting people using sports, non-sense about celebrities and their dumb-*ss songs, hollywood and so on. Other countries may not be doing this.

#cost of freedom: After death, the term freedom is meaningless.

Also it would have been great if you would compare Japan and the US. Is it possible? Would it be meaningful?
I think @spikey360 may have covered and interesting aspect of such a comparison.
Another thing that I did not mention earlier was that Japan was once among the most armed societies per capita. During the 16th century Japan produced more matchlock type firearms than probably any european nation. That was a time when Japan was a hell lot more violent than today (Senkoku period)

Also I am not so sure about americans practicing their firearms, esp. in the big cities outside of The South.
Additionally recreational shooting/practice/hunting is not the same as combat shooting.

 

[pmaitra]

#civil war: People can always be content or can never be content. For eg. in the US this is ensured by distracting people using sports, non-sense about celebrities and their dumb-*ss songs, hollywood and so on. Other countries may not be doing this.

Humans generally try to live their lives. No person will look for trouble if he is able to lead his life in the way he knows how to lead his life, for example, a farmer will be content with growing crops and selling them. However, if they are forced to cultivate something and ensnared in a debt trap (like in the case of Indigo Cultivation), it will at one point boil over. People don't need distraction. If the government functions properly, there will be jobs for everyone. Entertainment is a natural activity of all civilizations.

#cost of freedom: After death, the term freedom is meaningless.

True. However, some prefer to kill and die than live a life of subservience. Our freedom fighters did not think how they will benefit. They did what they did, in the hope those that survive will benefit from their actions after their death.

Also it would have been great if you would compare Japan and the US. Is it possible? Would it be meaningful?
I think @spikey360 may have covered and interesting aspect of such a comparison.
Another thing that I did not mention earlier was that Japan was once among the most armed societies per capita. During the 16th century Japan produced more matchlock type firearms than probably any european nation.

I am not so well informed about Japan. I am reading posts by others.

 

[kr9]

Hi,

Humans generally try to live their lives. No person will look for trouble if he is able to lead his life in the way he knows how to lead his life,

Exploring on the posts from you & @Razor:---

Firearms for protection is one thing, but enabling violence as a distraction & recreation has made it impossible for the US to live without it. If probed deeper into the human mind, it is not about racism, but about boredom.
A person who has experienced its intoxication will never be content with any other job or activity.

We are also racist, but we don't go around killing people ---- because we have not been raised on the 'high' it gives.

Example:---
From a psychological point, the war on terror is nothing more than a recreational sport for an angry US mob bred on violence. Terrorists are still roaming free in Pakistan.
The unnecessary murders, rapes and atrocities by US soldiers in the Middle East are because some immature 18 yr old boys wanted an 'enemy to fight / the thrill of the hunt' to satisfy their pursuit for contentment in their lives.
Rome was the same & like Rome, the slightest anger from the mob will create anarchy.

And it seems it has; glorified by legalized violence and Hollywood, the US has run out of enemies to feed their angry populace. They have been living off Iraq and Afghanistan for 14 years. Then there was ISIS, now with ISIS almost finished, they are turning on each other, where the enemy is the one with a different skin colour (black, brown, red and white are all equally pretentious and manipulative).

To control this, they need a new enemy, but who? China?........ Then Pakistan?..... Russia? .......India??
Soon more countries will fall victim to recreational violence disguised as 'the war against the enemies of America'.

PS: China is not much different either.... they just offer a different idea to be content with life...that of a superior communist empire.

 

[pmaitra]

@kr9, I will respond in detail later. Good post BTW.

 

[pmaitra]

Continue discussion at latest shooting here: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...others-injured-in-baton-rouge-shooting.76991/