Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's been my contention that it's bad to have 100k+ government agents armed with guns, looking for suspicious behavior and given vague and subjective guidelines as to what constitutes a thread allowing for the use of deadly force to stop that threat.
What if the majority of police were not automatically armed?
Currently, pretty much every cop on the street has a gun on their body 100% of the time. When they show up to a fender bender, they have a gun on them. When they show up to a mental illness crisis, the have a gun on them. When they show up for a petty larceny crime, they are armed.
How about giving them access to a weapon, but not have it always on them?
Since the majority of cops on the street are in cars, how about having a biometric safe in the center console of the car? Cops leave their guns in that safe for the majority of calls, but can "arm up" for other types of calls.
All police would be carrying non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray or tasers.
I think this would make many people less apprehensive about police. Although you constantly hear false claims about suspects involved in minor crimes saying they fled for fear of being shot by police, there are some that actually have this fear which escalates the situation. We have also seen people shot due to accidental discharges. Cops end up in scuffles where there is the reality that the officers gun may become accessible.
What do you think, would changing police procedure to having access to a service weapon instead of always carrying it be a positive or negative? Vote and discuss.
The most innocuous call can turn into a life or death situation within seconds. Cops always say that domestic incidents are the worst because you never know what's going to happen.
If all American cops weren't armed 100% of the time you'd see a lot more dead cops.
Watch how a simple interaction that stayed peaceful for 9 minutes suddenly turns into a shootout:
The most innocuous call can turn into a life or death situation within seconds. Cops always say that domestic incidents are the worst because you never know what's going to happen.
If all American cops weren't armed 100% of the time you'd see a lot more dead cops.
I guess you missed my point that some calls will allow police to "arm up" while responding.
The procedure on a domestic disturbance could be that if it's inside of a structure with potential violence, the cops move their weapons from the safe to their holsters before responding. If the response is to two women fighting on the street, weapons stay in the safe.
Sorry, but it appears your mind immediately jumped to "He wants cops unarmed" when that is not at all what I proposed.
At the local level yes. But there are too many armed federal employees. Since we have the corrupt FBI, homeland security doesn't need to be armed too.
Yeah the local police officer investigated a domestic disturbance or robbery needs to be armed. A bureaucrat in Virginia investigating a farmer who is selling raw milk(openly not hiding the fact that it is raw milk) does not need anything more than a laptop. If he really thinks a farmer selling raw milk is such a threat, request the local police department for help.
I trust most police officers and know that 99% will do the right thing. The benefit of having a armed police officers FAR outweighs the problems the very very very small minority of bad officers. Also this is about the USA right? If citizens have the right to be armed and many are armed, it kind of makes sense that the police officers be able to be armed as well.
You may want to read the question again, because it clearly states access instead of always carrying.
when you ask one yes or no question in the thread title and switch the answers in the poll that means you want people to vote your way by confusing them.
The procedure on a domestic disturbance could be that if it's inside of a structure with potential violence, the cops move their weapons from the safe to their holsters before responding. If the response is to two women fighting on the street, weapons stay in the safe.
Sorry, but it appears your mind immediately jumped to "He wants cops unarmed" when that is not at all what I proposed.
No, I understood your proposition perfectly and responded that situations can change so quickly that cops would die if they weren't always carrying a firearm.
Two women fighting in the street can turn into "woman stabs and kills domestic partner and responding police officer" in the blink of an eye.
Yeah the local police officer investigated a domestic disturbance or robbery needs to be armed. A bureaucrat in Virginia investigating a farmer who is selling raw milk(openly not hiding the fact that it is raw milk) does not need anything more than a laptop. If he really thinks a farmer selling raw milk is such a threat, request the local police department for help.
I trust most police officers and know that 99% will do the right thing. The benefit of having a armed police officers FAR outweighs the problems that a very very very small minority of bad officers.
Our health inspectors are now armed because of incidents they've run into while investigating food sanitation complaints. It's not as cut and dried as some would like to think...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
