You know, you can talk sense to persons like Ian David Long, but to talk sense to them, you must make sense, and that rules out a lot of the nonsense circulated by the crazy people.
Sometimes a rapist is so far gone, he does not expect anybody to be angry at him. He thinks all he has to do is say some ridiculous nonsense, ("There, there. I don't want to hurt you. I only want to rape you.") and the victim will be okay with it. If you wonder who could be that crazy, just consider all the persons who think they can vote to violate other people's rights, without thereby inciting hostility. They think all they have to do is spew forth their absurd lines of reasoning and ignore the obvious flaws therein, and the victims will be okay with it.
Angry, outvoted victims of the government's malicious wrongdoings are lectured about how they must not resort to violence, because there is a non-violent solution available to them. This is a lie. No non-violent solution is available to them. Good, sound logical reasoning says that a non-violent solution must be non-violent (such as voting is) and must be a solution. It is not a solution if it does not work. Voting does not work when those of us who vote for orthodox libertarian extremists are vastly outnumbered by potholes who vote wrong. The potholes think their government can impose school taxes, zoning restrictions and drug laws without inciting hostility. They think their government can lock up and drug innocent persons, for the benefit of drug companies, without inciting hostility. The custom of being respectful in political discussion may allow those potholes to indulge in that fantasy.
Cops are free to turn in their badges. That is certainly non-violent, but that option is not available to the outvoted victims of unjust laws, it is available to the cops. Voters are free to elect orthodox libertarian extremists. That is also non-violent, but that option is not available to the outvoted victims of unjust laws, it is available to the potholes, who comprise the vast majority of the electorate.
Consider the argument that the vast majority of voters believe that the government should impose school taxes, zoning restrictions and drug laws. Orthodox libertarian extremists reject this argument, as it is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum. Potholes use bad reasoning because good, sound, logical reasoning does not support their positions.
Consider also the argument that these unjust laws reflect the will of the people. Orthodox libertarian extremists reject this argument because it is a lie. As your geometry teacher no doubt taught you, for a statement to be true it must be true for all cases. To say that these laws reflect the will of the people is to say that all people support these laws, which is not true. Orthodox libertarian extremists do not support these unjust laws, period.
In State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware (1934) the New Jersey legal team argued that Delaware had consented (acquiesced) in New Jerseys occupation of the disputed boundary zone; which argument the court rejected by pointing out that the two States have been arguing about the boundary all along. This line from that case is worded well:
If a record such as this makes out a title by acquiescence, one is somewhat at a loss to know how protest would be shown.
A society cannot consent to anything. Neither can a legislature. Only an individual, and maybe some animals, can consent to anything, or perform any thought process.
Then there is the argument about how this country is a democracy, another lie. According to the World Almanac and Book of Facts, (not orthodox libertarian extremist opinions, but facts) the form of government in the United States of America is a federal republic. You don't pledge allegiance to the democracy for which it stands.
Gang rape is a democracy. Five persons say YES, one person says NO, and the majority rules, electing one of themselves "sheriff," to handcuff the victim. One vote is useless, and so is campaigning to those no-good punks who do not give a fire truck about the unalienable rights of the outvoted victim, but killing the sheriff might work. He should not have accepted the job if he didn't want to die early, and they shouldn't have voted wrong if they didn't want the sheriff to get himself killed in the act of his own malicious wrongdoing. Sometimes the only way to educate the voters is to teach them a lesson.
Logic: Unalienable rights, by definition, preempt the Rule of Law whenever the two things conflict with each other.
After the cops beat the daylights out of Rodney King, and then in 1992, were allowed to lie their way out of criminal charges, riots broke out. Rioters figured this was how to punish us for electing candidates who are soft on police brutality. To talk sense to them would require teaching them that innocent persons are not the enemy, the cops are. That technique might also work to stop mass shootings.
We have all heard the nonsense about how there are also some good cops. Orthodox libertarian extremists reject this nonsense. Not only the exact same enemy pilots who dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor, and not only during that attack on 7 December 1941, but all of the armed forces of the hostile government are the enemy for the duration of the hostilities. Let God sort them out. Likewise, not only the exact same enemy officers who threw a flash grenade into Bounkham Phonesavanh's playpen, and not only during that drug raid on 28 May 2014, but all of the police forces of the hostile government are the enemy. They are an organized enemy force on a mission to intimidate innocent persons into obeying the unjust laws of an unjust government. (They prefer to say, "deter," but that means the same thing as "intimidate.") Let God sort them out.
Potholes enjoy spouting out, "Love it or leave it," ignoring the obvious flaw in that. The only persons who are free to move out of the United States of America are dual citizens, and the ones who can secure permission from the bureaucrats of a foreign country to move in.
The potholes ask, if angry outvoted victims target cops, or if the cops quit rather than get targeted, then who are people going to call? First, they will call the cops. I do have the funny feeling the cops won't all go the same day, but if half of them quit, rather than getting themselves killed for enforcing unjust laws, and the other half are about to, that puts serious pressure on politicians to repeal the unjust laws. Second, if they don't like waking up one morning without a police department, many of them should have thought of that before they voted against orthodox libertarian extremists, electing candidates who support blatantly unjust laws. They voted to misuse law enforcement as a weapon of unprovoked violence.
There have been cases over the years where cops have chosen to get themselves killed in the act of their own malicious wrongdoing, such as during drug raids, or in retaliation for crimes of brutality and perjury. The blood of those cops is on the hands of politicians who support unjust laws, and who are soft on police brutality and police perjury. The blood of those cops is also on the hands of voters who elected them. Those voters did not pull the trigger, but they did pull the lever.
Lobbying the hostile government is non-violent but it is not a solution. Therefore, it is not a non-violent solution. It is not a solution because it does not work. Most politicians think orthodox libertarian extremists' demands are a big, funny joke.
In Maryland, the slaves were eventually freed by using ballots. Meanwhile, in Virginia, the slaves were being freed by using bullets. Ballots did not work in Virginia because too many Virginians voted against abolitionist candidates. Don't blame the abolitionists for that. The potholes were entitled to their wrong opinion about slavery, but holding a wrong opinion did not entitle them to keep slaves.
1.) You should never render aid to any enemy officer in distress unless you are required to do so.
2.) You should never vote for candidates who support the misuse of law enforcement as a weapon of unprovoked violence against innocent, outvoted victims of unjust laws. You should vote for orthdox libertarian extremists.
3.) After a mass shooting, it is important to lash out against the senseless violence against innocent persons who did not deserve it.
4.) As cops get taken out, you should carefully evaluate each case; and if the cop was killed in the act of his or her own malicious wrongdoing, or in retaliation for police brutality, police perjury or the enforcement of blatantly unjust laws, you should figuratively put the blood of the slain cop on the hands of the guilty politicians and the voters who elected them. Most politicians are tough on drugs because that is how to win elections. They have no qualms about buying those votes with the blood of cops that have gotten themselves killed enforcing drug laws. Those politicians really do not want to know that the blood of those cops is on their hands.
5.) As cops get taken out, in the act of their own malicious wrongdoing or in retaliation for police brutality, police perjury or the enforcement of blatantly unjust laws, you need to rebut the news media's portrayal of the slain cop as a fallen hero, because such praise encourages more cops to make the same bad choice and to reap the same gruesome consequences. If you and I try to rob an armored car and we get ourselves killed, we would not be fallen heroes.
6.) You should be careful never to underestimate the hostility incited by voters and politicians who vote wrong.
7.) Carefully review the chessboard and keep searching for solutions that do not involve violating anybody's rights.