6 ms·

> By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry. Do yo

by NhanH 11y ago

> By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry. Do you mind elaborate how firearm would help with combating civil forfeiture?

sarciszewski 11y ago
More dead police officers, and a lesser incentive for the police to rob the commoners, most likely. EDIT: To the multitude of downvoters and angry replies: I didn't say I agreed! I'm just saying where these arguments usually logically end up.
- cdash 11y ago
  Of course, more guns does not bring that about but the willingness to kill and rebel against the government by a major part of the population.
- fuzzywalrus 11y ago
  ... which leads more militarized policing.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  Which doesn't work until we get to the point of all-out civil rebellion. The US has a heavily armed citizenry now and this is obviously happening. And drawing a weapon on a police officer will end badly no matter what the cop was doing. And that's not for entirely unreasonable reasons.
- tehwalrus 11y ago
  You mean more funding for swat teams and heavier militarisation to defend themselves? Which is the only way such a move would be politically spun in this universe.
  - samstave 11y ago
    And this is the core of the problem!!!
- r00fus 11y ago
  You're being downvoted you because what you propose is a self-defeating policy - those who gun down cops are enemy #1 and remove themselves from the equation pretty quickly.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    > because what you propose is a self-defeating policy Once again, I'm not proposing this. I'm answering a question with the honest logical conclusion that some peoples' worldviews take them to.
wahsd 11y ago
It's more of a hedge in case all these ridiculous situations just go off the deep end altogether.
adventured 11y ago
If the police continue to escalate their militarization, and continue to ramp up their asset thievery - let's say for illustration purposes here - to a dramatically greater degree. What other choice would the population have than to defend themselves against that kind of extreme assault on their liberty and property by what would be an obviously hostile, violent and radically unconstitutional force? The police would become little more than armed bandits at that point, modern pirates. It seems like an outlandish scenario to me, but it may not be if the police asset theft continues to soar as it has been. How about if it's ten times larger ten years from now? Latin America has had plenty of this going on, scenarios where the police have become bandits that plunder the population in numerous ways.
- manachar 11y ago
  The police operate at the will of the people. They are as heavily armed as they are because the political process highly rewards "tough-on-crime" politicians. Maybe instead of buying guns we should invest more of our time and resources into the political process.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cglace 11y ago
    I thought police were heavily armed for two reasons: the war on drugs and the programs put in place post 9/11.
  - stevendhansen 11y ago
    The events of the last century have all but proven, in my mind, that the political process can do very little to change the political process.
jessaustin 11y ago
We'll keep that to ourselves. If you need a touchy-feely PC-approved reason why civil forfeiture leads to a more-armed populace, try this: Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security. Unarmed people might need police for that (ignoring for a moment the fact police are actually terrible at that particular task), but because of civil forfeiture (among other reasons) they are reluctant to involve police. Therefore civil forfeiture makes unarmed people less secure, theoretically. [EDIT:] In case I wasn't clear, I'm saying: civil forfeiture -> armed populace I'm not saying: armed populace -> less civil forfeiture
- DanBC 11y ago
  You have a heavily armed population (the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else) and you still have terrible police.
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    ...and less safety than in countries with better gun control.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Yes we do have terrible police. Gun ownership doesn't change that, but it does mean you don't have to call the police until there are corpses to be collected. That's only the immediate benefit, because the likelihood of armed resistance to crime is a strong deterrent in the first place.
- richmarr 11y ago
  > Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security That seems contrary to evidence, surely. Looking at stats for residential shootings: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
  - 11y ago
sneak 11y ago
Widespread private firearm ownership, known to the police, cause police to be more respectful when interacting with the public.
balls187 11y ago
If the the police believed that the average American is well armed and capable of defending their rights, that would change how Police interact with them, reducing the number of bullshit enforcements, such as civil forfeitures.
- krapp 11y ago
  Those police do believe the average American is possibly well armed.. they live in the same country as everyone else and know what the Second Amendment is. Why do you think they have backup and guns at the ready every time they make a traffic stop? Why is violence an effective means of coercion by the common citizen, but an unacceptable means of coercion by the state? Surely, if fearing for their lives would keep the police honest, having the people fear for their lives would keep them honest and law abiding as well?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  No, it wouldn't. Heck, firearms are a not-infrequent subject of civil forfeiture, so clearly people having firearms doesn't discourage the government from applying forfeiture.

by NhanH 11y ago

sarciszewski 11y ago

More dead police officers, and a lesser incentive for the police to rob the commoners, most likely. EDIT: To the multitude of downvoters and angry replies: I didn't say I agreed! I'm just saying where these arguments usually logically end up.

cdash 11y ago
Of course, more guns does not bring that about but the willingness to kill and rebel against the government by a major part of the population.
fuzzywalrus 11y ago
... which leads more militarized policing.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
Which doesn't work until we get to the point of all-out civil rebellion. The US has a heavily armed citizenry now and this is obviously happening. And drawing a weapon on a police officer will end badly no matter what the cop was doing. And that's not for entirely unreasonable reasons.
tehwalrus 11y ago
You mean more funding for swat teams and heavier militarisation to defend themselves? Which is the only way such a move would be politically spun in this universe.
- samstave 11y ago
  And this is the core of the problem!!!
r00fus 11y ago
You're being downvoted you because what you propose is a self-defeating policy - those who gun down cops are enemy #1 and remove themselves from the equation pretty quickly.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  > because what you propose is a self-defeating policy Once again, I'm not proposing this. I'm answering a question with the honest logical conclusion that some peoples' worldviews take them to.

wahsd 11y ago

It's more of a hedge in case all these ridiculous situations just go off the deep end altogether.

adventured 11y ago

If the police continue to escalate their militarization, and continue to ramp up their asset thievery - let's say for illustration purposes here - to a dramatically greater degree. What other choice would the population have than to defend themselves against that kind of extreme assault on their liberty and property by what would be an obviously hostile, violent and radically unconstitutional force? The police would become little more than armed bandits at that point, modern pirates. It seems like an outlandish scenario to me, but it may not be if the police asset theft continues to soar as it has been. How about if it's ten times larger ten years from now? Latin America has had plenty of this going on, scenarios where the police have become bandits that plunder the population in numerous ways.

manachar 11y ago
The police operate at the will of the people. They are as heavily armed as they are because the political process highly rewards "tough-on-crime" politicians. Maybe instead of buying guns we should invest more of our time and resources into the political process.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cglace 11y ago
  I thought police were heavily armed for two reasons: the war on drugs and the programs put in place post 9/11.
- stevendhansen 11y ago
  The events of the last century have all but proven, in my mind, that the political process can do very little to change the political process.

jessaustin 11y ago

We'll keep that to ourselves. If you need a touchy-feely PC-approved reason why civil forfeiture leads to a more-armed populace, try this: Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security. Unarmed people might need police for that (ignoring for a moment the fact police are actually terrible at that particular task), but because of civil forfeiture (among other reasons) they are reluctant to involve police. Therefore civil forfeiture makes unarmed people less secure, theoretically. [EDIT:] In case I wasn't clear, I'm saying: civil forfeiture -> armed populace I'm not saying: armed populace -> less civil forfeiture

DanBC 11y ago
You have a heavily armed population (the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else) and you still have terrible police.
- Ao7bei3s 11y ago
  ...and less safety than in countries with better gun control.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Yes we do have terrible police. Gun ownership doesn't change that, but it does mean you don't have to call the police until there are corpses to be collected. That's only the immediate benefit, because the likelihood of armed resistance to crime is a strong deterrent in the first place.
richmarr 11y ago
> Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security That seems contrary to evidence, surely. Looking at stats for residential shootings: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
- 11y ago

sneak 11y ago

Widespread private firearm ownership, known to the police, cause police to be more respectful when interacting with the public.

balls187 11y ago

If the the police believed that the average American is well armed and capable of defending their rights, that would change how Police interact with them, reducing the number of bullshit enforcements, such as civil forfeitures.

krapp 11y ago
Those police do believe the average American is possibly well armed.. they live in the same country as everyone else and know what the Second Amendment is. Why do you think they have backup and guns at the ready every time they make a traffic stop? Why is violence an effective means of coercion by the common citizen, but an unacceptable means of coercion by the state? Surely, if fearing for their lives would keep the police honest, having the people fear for their lives would keep them honest and law abiding as well?
dragonwriter 11y ago
No, it wouldn't. Heck, firearms are a not-infrequent subject of civil forfeiture, so clearly people having firearms doesn't discourage the government from applying forfeiture.