3 ms·
I have a revolutionary solution to this conundrum: don't have all the police officers carry guns. Then police officer doesn't have to worry about person taking
by semi-extrinsic 9y ago
I have a revolutionary solution to this conundrum: don't have all the police officers carry guns. Then police officer doesn't have to worry about person taking his gun, person doesn't worry about getting shot, and they can de-escalate the situation much more easily and quickly.
Seriously, many European countries do this, e.g. the UK. Even in the poorest neighbourhoods in London, which Republicans referred to as "no-go zones" in the last election, regular cops on the beat don't carry.
- krapp 9y agoEuropean countries don't have a Constitution with the right to keep and bear arms, or the armed populace that resulted from it. Barring a Constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd Amendment and likely civil war, the only possible result to disarming American police would be that the police would just be easier to shoot.
- c22 9y agoI never understood this argument. A gun is not a shield, so how does it protect you from being shot?
- dragonwriter 9y agoDeterrence is a form of protection, as is the capability to disable a potential attacker.
- c22 9y agoSure, but people making this argument tend to imply that a gun is the only effective way to deter or disable specifically an attacker with a gun. No one says police should carry guns to deter knife wielders and a Kevlar vest would seem to provide more protection against someone with a gun who's at the end of their rope/too strung out to care. This line of reasoning would make more sense if life was a TV show and every armed interaction was a Mexican standoff, but in reality most criminals with guns are already far from being rational actors.