3 ms·

Am I the only liberal out there that thinks it's hypocritical to push gun control measures because we have modern police forces, but in the same breath protest

Am I the only liberal out there that thinks it's hypocritical to push gun control measures because we have modern police forces, but in the same breath protest police brutality and the encroachment of the police state? Hell, even Marx advocated widespread gun ownership as an implicit reminder for those in power that they had to be accountable for their actions.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bcook 11y ago
Those in power have attack helicopters. My Glock is useless against that. Edit: This post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I had no idea it was such a hot-button issue.
- refurb 11y ago
  Tell that to the poorly armed fighters in Afghanistan who kicked out the Soviets and the North Vietnamese who kicked out the Americans. Sure, going toe-to-toe with an attack helicopter with only a handgun is a losing proposition, but that's not the only way to do it.
  - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
    They didn't do it with gumption, they did it by getting armed by other foreign powers on the other side of the proxy conflict. Without massive support from global or regional powers, the guerrillas wouldn't really have had a chance.
    - refurb 11y ago
      Yes North Vietnam received military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war, but the NLF had access to very little of that weaponry. There are stories from American soldiers where they were confiscating WW2 bolt-action firearms from the NLF right up until the late 1960s. Algeria is another great example where they kicked the French out of Algeria but had very little backing from a major superpower. The point is that simple firearms can inflict a lot of damage on a highly sophisticated army.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Yes North Vietnam received military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war No, North Vietnam received military assistance from China and the Soviet Union not just "later on in the war" -- in fact, that assistance began with direct aid to the Viet Minh in the First Indochina War against france, and continued through uninterrupted (except that, "later in the war" China withdrew both its aid and direct involvement, after its own falling out with the USSR and Hanoi's refusal to break with the USSR and align with China) through -- and beyond -- the end of the war with the US. > but the NLF had access to very little of that weaponry. Which would be relevant if the NLF, on its own, pushed the US out of Vietnam.
        refurb 11y ago
        I'll rephrase that and say "North Vietnam received substantial military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war". Which would be relevant if the NLF, on its own, pushed the US out of Vietnam. Considering most of the fighting was in the South against NLF units, I'd say they played a big part in pushing the US out of Vietnam. Think about what happened during the Tet Offensive. It wasn't the NVA carry most of the brunt.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > I'll rephrase that and say "North Vietnam received substantial military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war". And you'll still be wrong. The Viet Minh and later North Vietnam received substantial military assistance, both in terms of materiel and direct support, from China from 1950 through 1968, and from the Soviet Union from 1950 through the end of the war. > Considering most of the fighting was in the South against NLF units Most of the fighting prior to Tet was in the South against NLF units; this failed to push the US out. After Tet (which was a major joint NLF / PAVN offensive), the NLF was no longer, as I understand, effective independently, and most fighting in the south was against PAVN or combined PAVN/NLF forces. > Think about what happened during the Tet Offensive. It wasn't the NVA carry most of the brunt. Tet was notable, in part, because it did involve major PAVN involvement, and, in part, because the NLF was rendered largely ineffective as a separate force because of the heavy toll it took in that offensive and the immediate aftermath. It demonstrates rather the opposite of your point.
  - pasbesoin 11y ago
    It's been a long time, but as I recall from memory, the U.S. started supplying them with shoulder-launched Stinger missile systems. Quite effective against armored helicopters (and, to a lesser extent, low-flying fighter planes). There was considerable concern over whether and where to those systems might travel / be traded / be sold. But it marked a turning point in the conflict.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The US also sanctioned the USSR, and the Soviets also only withdrew when Gorbachev became the General Secretary.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Tell that to the poorly armed fighters in Afghanistan who kicked out the Soviets You mean the ones that the US and Pakistan were arming, including with weapons optimized to counter the main heavy weapons used against them (particularly Stinger missiles to counter Russian attack helicopters)? > and the North Vietnamese who kicked out the Americans. The North Vietnamese were not only massively supplied by outside powers, but both China (before their falling out with the USSR) and the Soviet Union directly intervened in Vietnam -- as, to a lesser extent, did North Korea.
- quellhorst 11y ago
  "An elderly peasant from near Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, who - according to Iraqi television - shot down an American Apache helicopter with his hunting rifle." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1425612/Iraqis-hail-peasant-who-shot-down-helicopter.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/14...
- staunch 11y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but this is one of those ignorant arguments that only survives because it sounds clever. 1. You only need guns good enough to take over an armory. 2. There are tens of millions of armed veterans in the U.S, and most (if not all) active solders would side with The People. 3. Every rebel group in history has had lesser weapons at first (see: Rome's Servile Wars, American revolution, Cuban revolution, Afghanistan, Iraq, ISIS, Syria, etc).
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    Each of those groups was armed by another power at some point during the conflict.
    - staunch 11y ago
      That's not accurate, but even if it was, you now have to argue why this time would be different.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        The point is that personal gun ownership is irrelevant, if the government has the backing of the military, either you get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers or you're screwed.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Personal gun ownership has been enough to get you to the point where you're still alive to get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers.
        brandonmenc 11y ago
        Or you get heavy weaponry from sympathizers in the military - in the United States there would be many, were they ordered to fire on their own people. I don't understand why opponents of the 2nd Amendment never consider this a possibility, when in fact the military not splintering under those conditions is the fantasy.
- seivan 11y ago
  Get close to the person giving orders to the Comanche, the Glock should suffice. The Glock isn't against the attack helicopter, it's for the pack of flesh giving orders to use one.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Those are protected by the attack helicopters.
    - staunch 11y ago
      You're thinking of defense helicopters.
- seivan 11y ago
  Get close to the person giving orders to the Comanche, the Glock should suffice. The Glock isn't against the attack helicopter, it's for the pack of flesh giving orders to use one.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gravypod 11y ago
  Who would win in a war: all of the US armed forces, or local farmers, most of whom cannot read, all commonly equipped with 20+ year old weapons most of which are bolt action? Yea, I guess we can keep lying to ourselves that we won the Vietnam 'conflict'.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    It wasn't just local farmers armed with old bolt action weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Pro-Hanoi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Pro-Hanoi
    - gravypod 11y ago
      But are you willing to accept that the Vietnamese we where fighting were not as well equipped as the entirety of the US military and the local "official" government?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Sure. But the US was also a democratic state where internal public opinion is influential. A single shot fired at Kent State was probably more effective than a thousand fired by the VietCong.
krapp 11y ago
I've never heard of the existence of "modern police forces" being employed as an argument for gun control, though I suppose that argument could be made. Most of the arguments protesting police brutality and "the encroachment of the police state" seem to be pro gun, for precisely the reasons you describe.
seivan 11y ago
You're assuming the regressive left that votes for Bern and Clinton know who Marx was. We're talking about a group of people that call themselves atheists but are okay for parallels societies were womens testimonies would be worth less in the name of multiculturalism.
mikeash 11y ago
I don't see what's hypocritical about it. In both cases, it's "instead of X, we should have good police forces."
- mseebach 11y ago
  Once you have good police forces, getting people behind gun control is going to be a walk in the park. So clearly, the rational thing is to fix the police first, come after the guns second, no?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sounds good to me, and that certainly lines up with how I'd prioritize the issues. But I don't think it's hypocritical to prioritize differently.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 11y ago
Do you consider armed confrontation with the police by law-abiding citizens an effective way of reducing their brutality? I just don't see how would that work. To me, it just seems to provide an excuse for the policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" which is easily assented to by the sections of the population that don't usually have to deal with those brutal events.
- dhfuehxhf 11y ago
  But that assumes a police force which isn't inherently abusive and corrupt, though. Events like that Fresno murder coverup story yesterday beg to differ.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    A camera is more dangerous to a corrupt officer than a gun.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    But that assumes a police force which isn't inherently abusive and corrupt, though. How so?
guelo 11y ago
I don't see any hypocrisy. Police would be more effective if they had strong oversight and accountability and were better trained, professional and unbiased.
ojbyrne 11y ago
Alternate viewpoint: the proliferation of guns in the US is a factor behind the militarization of the police force. If the police can argue that when they execute raids the person on the other side of the door is armed, then that can be used to argue the need more powerful guns, armor, armored vehicles, etc.
- refurb 11y ago
  Fair point, but the US had a ton of civilians guns before the police ever started looking like an army.
- jabgrabdthrow 11y ago
  I think a large fraction of raid targets would be armed even if you made guns illegal.
plorg 11y ago
On the other hand, isn't it hypocritical to recommend a de-escalation of police violence and power while at the same time encouraging citizens to take up guns against those "modern police forces"? The whole goal, if I would understand it correctly, would be to reduce the total amount of violence and death. In any case, recommending violence as a response to other violence only makes the situation worse.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bcook 11y ago

Those in power have attack helicopters. My Glock is useless against that. Edit: This post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I had no idea it was such a hot-button issue.

refurb 11y ago
Tell that to the poorly armed fighters in Afghanistan who kicked out the Soviets and the North Vietnamese who kicked out the Americans. Sure, going toe-to-toe with an attack helicopter with only a handgun is a losing proposition, but that's not the only way to do it.
- BookmarkSaver 11y ago
  They didn't do it with gumption, they did it by getting armed by other foreign powers on the other side of the proxy conflict. Without massive support from global or regional powers, the guerrillas wouldn't really have had a chance.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Yes North Vietnam received military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war, but the NLF had access to very little of that weaponry. There are stories from American soldiers where they were confiscating WW2 bolt-action firearms from the NLF right up until the late 1960s. Algeria is another great example where they kicked the French out of Algeria but had very little backing from a major superpower. The point is that simple firearms can inflict a lot of damage on a highly sophisticated army.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Yes North Vietnam received military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war No, North Vietnam received military assistance from China and the Soviet Union not just "later on in the war" -- in fact, that assistance began with direct aid to the Viet Minh in the First Indochina War against france, and continued through uninterrupted (except that, "later in the war" China withdrew both its aid and direct involvement, after its own falling out with the USSR and Hanoi's refusal to break with the USSR and align with China) through -- and beyond -- the end of the war with the US. > but the NLF had access to very little of that weaponry. Which would be relevant if the NLF, on its own, pushed the US out of Vietnam.
      - refurb 11y ago
        I'll rephrase that and say "North Vietnam received substantial military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war". Which would be relevant if the NLF, on its own, pushed the US out of Vietnam. Considering most of the fighting was in the South against NLF units, I'd say they played a big part in pushing the US out of Vietnam. Think about what happened during the Tet Offensive. It wasn't the NVA carry most of the brunt.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > I'll rephrase that and say "North Vietnam received substantial military assistance from China and the Soviet Union later on in the war". And you'll still be wrong. The Viet Minh and later North Vietnam received substantial military assistance, both in terms of materiel and direct support, from China from 1950 through 1968, and from the Soviet Union from 1950 through the end of the war. > Considering most of the fighting was in the South against NLF units Most of the fighting prior to Tet was in the South against NLF units; this failed to push the US out. After Tet (which was a major joint NLF / PAVN offensive), the NLF was no longer, as I understand, effective independently, and most fighting in the south was against PAVN or combined PAVN/NLF forces. > Think about what happened during the Tet Offensive. It wasn't the NVA carry most of the brunt. Tet was notable, in part, because it did involve major PAVN involvement, and, in part, because the NLF was rendered largely ineffective as a separate force because of the heavy toll it took in that offensive and the immediate aftermath. It demonstrates rather the opposite of your point.
- pasbesoin 11y ago
  It's been a long time, but as I recall from memory, the U.S. started supplying them with shoulder-launched Stinger missile systems. Quite effective against armored helicopters (and, to a lesser extent, low-flying fighter planes). There was considerable concern over whether and where to those systems might travel / be traded / be sold. But it marked a turning point in the conflict.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The US also sanctioned the USSR, and the Soviets also only withdrew when Gorbachev became the General Secretary.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Tell that to the poorly armed fighters in Afghanistan who kicked out the Soviets You mean the ones that the US and Pakistan were arming, including with weapons optimized to counter the main heavy weapons used against them (particularly Stinger missiles to counter Russian attack helicopters)? > and the North Vietnamese who kicked out the Americans. The North Vietnamese were not only massively supplied by outside powers, but both China (before their falling out with the USSR) and the Soviet Union directly intervened in Vietnam -- as, to a lesser extent, did North Korea.
quellhorst 11y ago
"An elderly peasant from near Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, who - according to Iraqi television - shot down an American Apache helicopter with his hunting rifle." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1425612/Iraqis-hail-peasant-who-shot-down-helicopter.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/14...
staunch 11y ago
I didn't downvote you, but this is one of those ignorant arguments that only survives because it sounds clever. 1. You only need guns good enough to take over an armory. 2. There are tens of millions of armed veterans in the U.S, and most (if not all) active solders would side with The People. 3. Every rebel group in history has had lesser weapons at first (see: Rome's Servile Wars, American revolution, Cuban revolution, Afghanistan, Iraq, ISIS, Syria, etc).
- st3v3r 11y ago
  Each of those groups was armed by another power at some point during the conflict.
  - staunch 11y ago
    That's not accurate, but even if it was, you now have to argue why this time would be different.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The point is that personal gun ownership is irrelevant, if the government has the backing of the military, either you get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers or you're screwed.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Personal gun ownership has been enough to get you to the point where you're still alive to get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers.
      - brandonmenc 11y ago
        Or you get heavy weaponry from sympathizers in the military - in the United States there would be many, were they ordered to fire on their own people. I don't understand why opponents of the 2nd Amendment never consider this a possibility, when in fact the military not splintering under those conditions is the fantasy.
seivan 11y ago
Get close to the person giving orders to the Comanche, the Glock should suffice. The Glock isn't against the attack helicopter, it's for the pack of flesh giving orders to use one.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Those are protected by the attack helicopters.
  - staunch 11y ago
    You're thinking of defense helicopters.
seivan 11y ago
Get close to the person giving orders to the Comanche, the Glock should suffice. The Glock isn't against the attack helicopter, it's for the pack of flesh giving orders to use one.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gravypod 11y ago
Who would win in a war: all of the US armed forces, or local farmers, most of whom cannot read, all commonly equipped with 20+ year old weapons most of which are bolt action? Yea, I guess we can keep lying to ourselves that we won the Vietnam 'conflict'.
- icebraining 11y ago
  It wasn't just local farmers armed with old bolt action weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Pro-Hanoi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Pro-Hanoi
  - gravypod 11y ago
    But are you willing to accept that the Vietnamese we where fighting were not as well equipped as the entirety of the US military and the local "official" government?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Sure. But the US was also a democratic state where internal public opinion is influential. A single shot fired at Kent State was probably more effective than a thousand fired by the VietCong.

krapp 11y ago

I've never heard of the existence of "modern police forces" being employed as an argument for gun control, though I suppose that argument could be made. Most of the arguments protesting police brutality and "the encroachment of the police state" seem to be pro gun, for precisely the reasons you describe.

seivan 11y ago

You're assuming the regressive left that votes for Bern and Clinton know who Marx was. We're talking about a group of people that call themselves atheists but are okay for parallels societies were womens testimonies would be worth less in the name of multiculturalism.

mikeash 11y ago

I don't see what's hypocritical about it. In both cases, it's "instead of X, we should have good police forces."

mseebach 11y ago
Once you have good police forces, getting people behind gun control is going to be a walk in the park. So clearly, the rational thing is to fix the police first, come after the guns second, no?
- mikeash 11y ago
  Sounds good to me, and that certainly lines up with how I'd prioritize the issues. But I don't think it's hypocritical to prioritize differently.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 11y ago

Do you consider armed confrontation with the police by law-abiding citizens an effective way of reducing their brutality? I just don't see how would that work. To me, it just seems to provide an excuse for the policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" which is easily assented to by the sections of the population that don't usually have to deal with those brutal events.

dhfuehxhf 11y ago
But that assumes a police force which isn't inherently abusive and corrupt, though. Events like that Fresno murder coverup story yesterday beg to differ.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  A camera is more dangerous to a corrupt officer than a gun.
- icebraining 11y ago
  But that assumes a police force which isn't inherently abusive and corrupt, though. How so?

guelo 11y ago

I don't see any hypocrisy. Police would be more effective if they had strong oversight and accountability and were better trained, professional and unbiased.

ojbyrne 11y ago

Alternate viewpoint: the proliferation of guns in the US is a factor behind the militarization of the police force. If the police can argue that when they execute raids the person on the other side of the door is armed, then that can be used to argue the need more powerful guns, armor, armored vehicles, etc.

refurb 11y ago
Fair point, but the US had a ton of civilians guns before the police ever started looking like an army.
jabgrabdthrow 11y ago
I think a large fraction of raid targets would be armed even if you made guns illegal.

plorg 11y ago

On the other hand, isn't it hypocritical to recommend a de-escalation of police violence and power while at the same time encouraging citizens to take up guns against those "modern police forces"? The whole goal, if I would understand it correctly, would be to reduce the total amount of violence and death. In any case, recommending violence as a response to other violence only makes the situation worse.