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.
There have been plenty of threads on gun control lately and many of them have been arguing for the complete abolition of private gun ownership. The arguments are often that crimes are only committed by guns and never prevented, that any protection provided by a gun is entirely illusory, and that possession of a firearm is an indication of a violent or psychopathic temperament. Let us assume that those assertions are all true. Then why make a special exception of the police?
It's obvious that guns are made to kill people and that they are evil (and scary), so obviously our omniscient and benevolent protectors do not need to carry weapons of any sort and should set a positive example for the populace. It is a proven fact that a gun cannot be used for any positive action (or at least prevent a negative action), so obviously cops don't need to carry sidearms. They also don't need pepper spray, mace, tasers, or nightsticks. Police units like SWAT teams need also to be disbanded as well. Volatile hostage situations and raids on fortified crackhouses should be handled be handled by stern looks and upright posture (which I have been assured by many anti-gun advocates that is enough to keep you out of most violent situations).
Not only am I arguing for the police to be disarmed. I'm arguing that they should be disarmed before civilians, so we can see firsthand how the police are able to deal with violent criminals without risking being disarmed and shot. We can watch in amazement and envy how safe police officers who patrol East St. Louis and Opa-Locka are now that they are unarmed.
Not only would it make them safer, but it would make us safer. Now, not all cops are bad. It's just the corrupt and violent 49% that give the other 51% a bad name. You have at least as good of an argument for disarming police as Joe Average. Considering the amount of known cases of police brutality (Rodney King and Kelly Thomas), corruption that ranges all the way to murder-for-hire (look at the Rampart Scandal and "the Mafia Cops"), questionable shootings, the near habitual shooting of dogs by the police, and number of bright lights that manage to shot themselves and other cops; I think there is a at least as valid of an argument for taking away guns from police officers as there are from the general populace.
See... this is why Obama won again. Conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and swung its more moderate members to the far Right and ... ... well actions speak for themselves. So, how's that working for you guys? If the only takeaway you can get from the other gun control threads is that Liberals think ALL guns are bad then that's your problem. Until fairly recently, Great Britain did not issue sidearms to their rank and file law enforcement. But you knew that, so you went on and said officers should be stripped of batons, pepper spray and tasers... non-lethal tools that not even the most extreme Liberal would ever have an issue with. Way to go.... not. I pronounce this thread FAILED.
See... this is why Obama won again. Conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and swung its more moderate members to the far Right and ... ... well actions speak for themselves. So, how's that working for you guys? If the only takeaway you can get from the other gun control threads is that Liberals think ALL guns are bad then that's your problem. Until fairly recently, Great Britain did not issue sidearms to their rank and file law enforcement. But you knew that, so you went on and said officers should be stripped of batons, pepper spray and tasers... non-lethal tools that not even the most extreme Liberal would ever have an issue with. Way to go.... not. I pronounce this thread FAILED.
Blaming guns for Columbine is the same thing as blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnel being fat.
I support mandatory gun use classes for all people 16 and over. Followed by all death penalties to be televised in front of a firing squad made up of high school students who have successfully passed the class.
See... this is why Obama won again. Conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and swung its more moderate members to the far Right and ... ... well actions speak for themselves. So, how's that working for you guys? If the only takeaway you can get from the other gun control threads is that Liberals think ALL guns are bad then that's your problem. Until fairly recently, Great Britain did not issue sidearms to their rank and file law enforcement. But you knew that, so you went on and said officers should be stripped of batons, pepper spray and tasers... non-lethal tools that not even the most extreme Liberal would ever have an issue with. Way to go.... not. I pronounce this thread FAILED.
H
A few things:
1) The 2012 Presidential Election was closer in terms of percentage points and popular vote than the 2008 Presidential Election (in other words not exactly a route from a popular vote standpoint).
2) I never said anything about "all liberals" or even "most liberals". As a matter of fact, I did not write the word "liberal" once in the OP. I know there are quite a few liberals who are critical of gun control and a number of conservatives (Rudy Giuliani for instance) who are support of gun control.
3) I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian. It isn't exactly a small difference. As a matter of fact, I harbor a number of "liberal" sympathies. I am not exactly a fan of capital punishment (at least how it is currently practiced), I am pro-choice (I have even started one or two pro-choice threads), I am very concerned about police brutality (I remember when that was the type of thing that liberals used to give a s--t about), and I support gay marriage as well.
I know. I'm a real hardcore right-winger...
4) Less-than-lethal weapons are banned or restricted in the UK and some US states as well.
5) My point is that why should the police (which are technically civilians) be allowed access to firearms when the supporters of gun control often completely dismiss the utility of firearms for self-protection or even the possibility of their utility. Why do the supporters of gun control make an exception for the police when they have often shown that they often aren't any more responsible or trustworthy of that power than the general populace?
5) My point is that why should the police (which are technically civilians) be allowed access to firearms when the supporters of gun control often completely dismiss the utility of firearms for self-protection or even the possibility of their utility. Why do the supporters of gun control make an exception for the police when they have often shown that they often aren't any more responsible or trustworthy of that power than the general populace?
Who say's they do? I don't. I'm all for a U.K. style system of gun control where no one gets them*. Period. It's not going to happen, however. And it isn't because guns are so gosh danged useful at defending police officers. They are used offensively most of the time they are used. Dozens of rounds fired by several officers at one, often unarmed, individual. No, the supporters of gun control would like to see guns go away altogether. The reality is something different. Law Enforcement has won the right to bear arms without question. Just yesterday a woman was shot to death for shoplifting. Tried and executed in less than 5 seconds by a duly deputized upholder of the law. He could not have done so without a firearm. There are two high profile shootings yet to be tried in court where the shooters lawyers are going to argue that the shooters were defending themselves with their guns. The incidents, however, clearly show the shooters placing themselves in a position of harm where they then had to shoot their way to "safety". Had they not been armed in the first place I argue that a greater amount of forethought would have been exercised by these individuals. Firearms are NOT the best tool one could use for self-protection. In many jurisdictions officers are issued both non-lethal tasers and potentially lethal fire-arms. They are trained in the use of both. In a clutch situation, 9x out of 10 they go for the gun. Why is that? Maybe it shouldn't be a choice??
H
*you can save the arguments about "then only the criminals will have them". This has been debunked. In NYC after years of arresting and re-arresting every single black and hispanic man in the city, police obtained 88 guns. Hundreds of thousands of stops and frisks in a single year and only 88 illegal guns to show for it. Is there anywhere worse than the slums of NYC for this kind of threat? Do citizens in Phoenix, AZ have more reason to fear that only criminals will have guns if they don't?
I support mandatory gun use classes for all people 16 and over. Followed by all death penalties to be televised in front of a firing squad made up of high school students who have successfully passed the class.
A good lesson in civics and law all around.
Really? Where does so much anger come from? You'd really want to put the responsibility for taking a human life on impressionable young people? Death Penalties are not a lesson in anything. If they were we would have a Utopia. Certainly in states like Texas where executions are rampant... crime continues apace. Why is that? Because they aren't televised?
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.
I Support Gun Control... For The Police
