[kdeberk]

> This argument is spectacularly stupid because based on the rise of exactly these kinds of incidents, you could justify the production and distribution of automated turrets to negate the use of current SWAT tactics.

Then it's a good thing that most states have laws that prohibit owning fully-automatic firearms then.

> You can't just stop at the perceived consequences of your supposed equilibrium point, you have to follow it all the way to the logical conclusion.

Don't be absurd. If I use a semi or fully automatic weapon to protect myself against police brutality, it will only ensure that I won't get out alive.

Nice slippery-slope argument by the way, do you work at FOX News?

[etherael]

An automated turret is not at all the same thing as a firearm with an automatic fire mode. An assault rifle with an automatic fire select might indeed increase the likelihood the operator is killed. An automatic turret on the other hand doesn't have an operator, making it potentially quite a good deterrent to thuggish humans jacked up on authoritarianism with guns storming an area.

I assume though since you're automatically painting opposition you don't understand with the same tired old bullshit labels typical of mainstream statist standard leftists, correcting your mistakes is liable to just annoy you with more cognitive dissonance. My apologies, I won't be replying again.

[kdeberk]

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. You told me that you can use my spectacularly stupid argument to justify a conclusion that you don't like, well that is your problem, not mine.

I only attempt argue that, 1) given the fact that people are free to own lethal firearms within their own homes, 2) given the fact that police officers are wont to die if they get shot, 3) and given the assertion that presented with a police force, SWAT or otherwise, within the safety of their own home, threatening the suspect with arrest, the suspect can resort to irrational and sometimes violent behavior, I conclude that to maximize their self-preservation, police forces have to ensure an imbalance of power while making the arrest.

You are calling this argument spectacularly stupid, so you are going to, without having to resort to logical fallacies, show to me why my conclusion is wrong.

> I assume though since you're automatically painting opposition you don't understand with the same tired old bullshit labels typical of mainstream statist standard leftists, correcting your mistakes is liable to just annoy you with more cognitive dissonance.

That you are quick to associate me with a political position that I am not inclined to support merely betrays your confused dichotomous outlook on politics. I can't even begin to guess what a "mainstream statist standard leftist" is. I only asked the question because to my knowledge, FOX News often uses the slippery slope argument as a rhetorical device. You turn it into a political debate.

> My apologies, I won't be replying again.

Right.