4 ms·

> Disarm most police. It's easier, politically, to disarm America than disarm police. Disarming everyone can be widely viewed as making everyone safer, but d

> Disarm most police. It's easier, politically, to disarm America than disarm police. Disarming everyone can be widely viewed as making everyone safer, but disarming only those who protect the public against violent crime will be widely viewed as making everyone less safe.

tptacek 10y ago
Strong disagree, for three big reasons (and several more small ones I'll try not to bore anyone with). 1. There is huge public support for firearms ownership in the US (it's important not to confuse support for gun control with gun prohibition). Further, significant changes in gun ownership rights would require radical political change. We're governed by an ideologically sorted 50/50 split legislature, and gun ownership is a valence issue for one of those halves. Radical changes to gun ownership rules in the US is unlikely. 2. Changing the composition of police forces from 90% assault to 20% assault requires no nationwide political consensus, and minimal local consensus. As I noted, it tracks well with other municipal priorities: funding the retirements of the assault officers we have now is already untenable. Using attrition instead of direct change mitigates the impact of public sector unions. 3. "Disarming" the American public doesn't address the officer safety concerns that lead to armed confrontation. Even if handguns were outlawed nationwide, handguns would continue to be universally owned by criminals. Disarming most police officers will make everybody, including the police, more safe. I strongly support gun control. I'm pretty close to "in a well regulated militia" only, in my gun views. But gun control is not the answer to this problem.
- woodchuck64 10y ago
  If its ideology that supports gun ownership, the same ideology supports tough crime laws and a well-armed police force. Fear explains why we want weapons, but fear also explains why we want a heavily armed police force. Those who are most afraid are not at all concerned about the police occasionally shooting unarmed minorities. Politically, you're still looking at 50/50 here at best it seems to me. But gun control at least makes it plausible that decreased weapons use in crime means police don't need to focus so much on assault.

tptacek 10y ago

Strong disagree, for three big reasons (and several more small ones I'll try not to bore anyone with). 1. There is huge public support for firearms ownership in the US (it's important not to confuse support for gun control with gun prohibition). Further, significant changes in gun ownership rights would require radical political change. We're governed by an ideologically sorted 50/50 split legislature, and gun ownership is a valence issue for one of those halves. Radical changes to gun ownership rules in the US is unlikely. 2. Changing the composition of police forces from 90% assault to 20% assault requires no nationwide political consensus, and minimal local consensus. As I noted, it tracks well with other municipal priorities: funding the retirements of the assault officers we have now is already untenable. Using attrition instead of direct change mitigates the impact of public sector unions. 3. "Disarming" the American public doesn't address the officer safety concerns that lead to armed confrontation. Even if handguns were outlawed nationwide, handguns would continue to be universally owned by criminals. Disarming most police officers will make everybody, including the police, more safe. I strongly support gun control. I'm pretty close to "in a well regulated militia" only, in my gun views. But gun control is not the answer to this problem.

woodchuck64 10y ago
If its ideology that supports gun ownership, the same ideology supports tough crime laws and a well-armed police force. Fear explains why we want weapons, but fear also explains why we want a heavily armed police force. Those who are most afraid are not at all concerned about the police occasionally shooting unarmed minorities. Politically, you're still looking at 50/50 here at best it seems to me. But gun control at least makes it plausible that decreased weapons use in crime means police don't need to focus so much on assault.