3 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoOf 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 agoWhich 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 agoYou 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 agoAnd this is the core of the problem!!!
- r00fus 11y agoYou'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.