3 ms·
It's sufficiently radical that I think it would be worth going to (civil) war over. It's an predicate to imposing anarcho-tyranny, where people and areas that
by hga 11y ago
It's sufficiently radical that I think it would be worth going to (civil) war over. It's an predicate to imposing anarcho-tyranny, where people and areas that don't, for example, vote "correctly" have their police protection largely withdrawn. This has happened in the U.K. and D.C. in recent memory.
It's also hard to see how this would make the police any more accountable to the people.
- debacle 11y agoI agree with you on the first point, but: > where people and areas that don't, for example, vote "correctly" have their police protection largely withdrawn. The NYPD has actually done this in NYC more than once in recent memory.
- hga 11y agoI'll bet. One thing you notice about these events in recent history is that they happened to already disarmed people (NYC < 60K each long and handgun licenses, D.C. all aside from grandfathering, U.K. pretty much all except shotguns, plus effective self-defense has long been illegal), it's most effective that way.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agoLots of small police departments make it easier for bad apples to hide. Larger police forces have larger viability and its easier to enforce national standards eg UK style fire arms training. You also increase efficiency and reduce costs by state wide procurement.