5 ms·

Blame the NRA. The proliferation of handguns and the militarization of the police are a positive feedback loop.

by ojbyrne 9y ago

ci5er 9y ago
The NRA is responsible for militarization of domestic police?
- Tomte 9y ago
  Sure, both to that and to policemen‘s fear of simple traffic stops. In most other countries the police officer can encounter a citizen without drawn gun because the odds of the citizen wielding a gun or worse are miniscule. In America even the drawn handgun might not be superior armament.
  - krapp 9y ago
    I'm no fan of the NRA but let's be honest about cause and effect. Fear by the police, the proliferation of firearms in the US and the arms race between the people and the state are all consequences of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution working, arguably, as intended. The NRA didn't cause any of that, although they do make hay of it for their own political and financial ends.
    - Tomte 9y ago
      The NRA is the predominant defender of 2nd amendment rights, which is, arguably, the second worst idea of the US constitution (after the extreme formulation of the first amendment).
      - refurb 9y ago
        Really? My position is that the 2nd amendment is one of the best ideas in the US Constitution.
        Tomte 9y ago
        Yes, really. One of those points where it seems to matter a lot in which culture one has been brought up.
        macintux 9y ago
        If the 2nd amendment were a great idea, they'd have written it intelligibly. Some of us parse the rationale such that it seems obsolete: we no longer rely on a militia to defend the nation, we have a professional military for it. > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State Some of us, obviously, don't.
        krapp 9y ago
        The authors probably thought it was intelligible, the intent was obvious and didn't need to be elaborated on. And now we're still arguing about the meaning of that damned comma...
        HarryHirsch 9y ago
        I feel that the Citizens' Committee to Investigate the FBI did more to keep the overreaching State in check than all the handguns combined.
      - noobiemcfoob 9y ago
        The broadness of the first amendment is largely responsible for modern American society having as much personal liberty as it does by encompassing the "live and let live" concept The 2nd amendment then keeps the government from having a great justification for countless "protective" measures. Don't help me when I can help myself.
        krapp 9y ago
        >The 2nd amendment then keeps the government from having a great justification for countless "protective" measures. Don't help me when I can help myself. Can you give any examples of such measures, or evidence that the threat of violent revolution implied in the Second Amendment, versus the political power of the gun lobby and American gun culture, has ever been effective at limiting the US government or its rationale?
        jeffdavis 9y ago
        The post to which you replied refers to self defense rather than a threat of violent revolution.
        krapp 9y ago
        I don't see how self defense prevents the government from having a justification for any "protective" measures, but I concede I may have misinterpreted the parent.
        noobiemcfoob 9y ago
        With what I'm talking about, you aren't going to see 1 for 1 examples of cause and effect. It's more that having these measures in place will necessarily prevent certain types of measures from even being considered since they've been excluded from the Overton window.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        My two favorite amendments!
        wglb 9y ago
        Curious what makes them your favorite? I kinda like the ninth.
    - alphonsegaston 9y ago
      The proliferation of firearms is a factor, but the main driver is income inequality and racism. You can go to a wealthy white neighborhood in a hard-right place like Texas and there will be plenty of guns. But the cops won’t feel the need to dress up like soldiers and kill people for minor offenses. Enforcing the kind of economic system where the poor have few ways to carve out a better life for themselves necessitates violence. Wage stagnation and an ever-increasing criminalization of poverty pushes more and more people into contact with the police. And austerity politics ensures that there is nothing to respond to any form of crisis with except the police.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > You can go to a wealthy white neighborhood in a hard-right place like Texas and there will be plenty of guns. But the cops won’t feel the need to dress up like soldiers and kill people for minor offenses. The video of the cop executing an innocent civillian[1] and getting away with it kind of disproves this statement. I agree that inequality and poverty are the issues, and I agree that there is a correlation between certain races and poverty, but I don't believe that the issue is just racism. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw
  - sjg007 9y ago
    Even with all of the guns it is highly unlikely a cop will be shot at during a routine traffic stop. It's highly unlikely to get shot at in general. Risk factors include living in an open carry state (Arizona), heavily tinted windows (the cop can't see in), not being white, and driving a risky car. In this case, while not a traffic stop, the attempted arrest protocol was just stupid and it resulted in his death. That whole department needs to be reformed by the FBI. I hope his widow wins a huge settlement. The argument that someone was reaching for a weapon or afraid for safety needs a higher burden of proof.
    - Tomte 9y ago
      You‘re absolutely right that the risk is objectively low. Do officers /perceive/ it as low? I‘d argue that they would if asked whether they should fear heart attacks more or less than guns on the street, but if you don‘t frame it that way they will probably tell you that of course guns are a real danger.
    - sparrish 9y ago
      Just because it may be low, does that mean they shouldn't do everything they can to mitigate that to as low as possible? If my loved one was a police officer, I'd want them taking every precaution they could - so they get to come home tonight.
KGIII 9y ago
Can you elaborate on why you want to blame the NRA? I should disclose that I own a number of firearms, many of them sidearms, and don't like the NRA very much, nor have I ever donated to them or been a member. I'm just curious as to how you see them as being the source to blame.
- ojbyrne 9y ago
  I’m not sure what I need to elaborate. The NRA promotes wider gun ownership and more expansive concealed carry. Police use wider ownership of guns and concealed carry to justify more use of deadly force and militarization. In any other country than the US, this feedback loop would be obvious. In the US the NRA works to blur the obvious by talking about “responsible gun owners” while eliding the leakage between responsible and irresponsible owners.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    And this led to the police militarization?
    - ojbyrne 9y ago
      It's not the only cause (I'll save you the rant on US defense spending, you can watch Why We Fight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/) , but it's a positive feedback loop. I don't believe I used the word "led" or suggested one caused the other. I am suggesting that once gun ownership (and concealed carry) and police militarization are established, one reinforces the other.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Ah, you said blame them. I'd assumerd that meant you felt they were the cause of both. I was pretty confused. Thanks for clearing that up. I am a fan of responsible firearm ownership, but not the NRA - by the way. I don't know if I'd blame them, but I'd agree that they contribute to the 'gun culture' that ends up with irresponsible people wanting to own firearms.

Blame the NRA. The proliferation of handguns and the militarization of the police are a positive feedback loop.

ci5er 9y ago

The NRA is responsible for militarization of domestic police?

Tomte 9y ago
Sure, both to that and to policemen‘s fear of simple traffic stops. In most other countries the police officer can encounter a citizen without drawn gun because the odds of the citizen wielding a gun or worse are miniscule. In America even the drawn handgun might not be superior armament.
- krapp 9y ago
  I'm no fan of the NRA but let's be honest about cause and effect. Fear by the police, the proliferation of firearms in the US and the arms race between the people and the state are all consequences of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution working, arguably, as intended. The NRA didn't cause any of that, although they do make hay of it for their own political and financial ends.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    The NRA is the predominant defender of 2nd amendment rights, which is, arguably, the second worst idea of the US constitution (after the extreme formulation of the first amendment).
    - refurb 9y ago
      Really? My position is that the 2nd amendment is one of the best ideas in the US Constitution.
      - Tomte 9y ago
        Yes, really. One of those points where it seems to matter a lot in which culture one has been brought up.
      - macintux 9y ago
        If the 2nd amendment were a great idea, they'd have written it intelligibly. Some of us parse the rationale such that it seems obsolete: we no longer rely on a militia to defend the nation, we have a professional military for it. > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State Some of us, obviously, don't.
        krapp 9y ago
        The authors probably thought it was intelligible, the intent was obvious and didn't need to be elaborated on. And now we're still arguing about the meaning of that damned comma...
      - HarryHirsch 9y ago
        I feel that the Citizens' Committee to Investigate the FBI did more to keep the overreaching State in check than all the handguns combined.
    - noobiemcfoob 9y ago
      The broadness of the first amendment is largely responsible for modern American society having as much personal liberty as it does by encompassing the "live and let live" concept The 2nd amendment then keeps the government from having a great justification for countless "protective" measures. Don't help me when I can help myself.
      - krapp 9y ago
        >The 2nd amendment then keeps the government from having a great justification for countless "protective" measures. Don't help me when I can help myself. Can you give any examples of such measures, or evidence that the threat of violent revolution implied in the Second Amendment, versus the political power of the gun lobby and American gun culture, has ever been effective at limiting the US government or its rationale?
        jeffdavis 9y ago
        The post to which you replied refers to self defense rather than a threat of violent revolution.
        krapp 9y ago
        I don't see how self defense prevents the government from having a justification for any "protective" measures, but I concede I may have misinterpreted the parent.
        noobiemcfoob 9y ago
        With what I'm talking about, you aren't going to see 1 for 1 examples of cause and effect. It's more that having these measures in place will necessarily prevent certain types of measures from even being considered since they've been excluded from the Overton window.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      My two favorite amendments!
      - wglb 9y ago
        Curious what makes them your favorite? I kinda like the ninth.
  - alphonsegaston 9y ago
    The proliferation of firearms is a factor, but the main driver is income inequality and racism. You can go to a wealthy white neighborhood in a hard-right place like Texas and there will be plenty of guns. But the cops won’t feel the need to dress up like soldiers and kill people for minor offenses. Enforcing the kind of economic system where the poor have few ways to carve out a better life for themselves necessitates violence. Wage stagnation and an ever-increasing criminalization of poverty pushes more and more people into contact with the police. And austerity politics ensures that there is nothing to respond to any form of crisis with except the police.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > You can go to a wealthy white neighborhood in a hard-right place like Texas and there will be plenty of guns. But the cops won’t feel the need to dress up like soldiers and kill people for minor offenses. The video of the cop executing an innocent civillian[1] and getting away with it kind of disproves this statement. I agree that inequality and poverty are the issues, and I agree that there is a correlation between certain races and poverty, but I don't believe that the issue is just racism. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw
- sjg007 9y ago
  Even with all of the guns it is highly unlikely a cop will be shot at during a routine traffic stop. It's highly unlikely to get shot at in general. Risk factors include living in an open carry state (Arizona), heavily tinted windows (the cop can't see in), not being white, and driving a risky car. In this case, while not a traffic stop, the attempted arrest protocol was just stupid and it resulted in his death. That whole department needs to be reformed by the FBI. I hope his widow wins a huge settlement. The argument that someone was reaching for a weapon or afraid for safety needs a higher burden of proof.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    You‘re absolutely right that the risk is objectively low. Do officers /perceive/ it as low? I‘d argue that they would if asked whether they should fear heart attacks more or less than guns on the street, but if you don‘t frame it that way they will probably tell you that of course guns are a real danger.
  - sparrish 9y ago
    Just because it may be low, does that mean they shouldn't do everything they can to mitigate that to as low as possible? If my loved one was a police officer, I'd want them taking every precaution they could - so they get to come home tonight.

KGIII 9y ago

Can you elaborate on why you want to blame the NRA? I should disclose that I own a number of firearms, many of them sidearms, and don't like the NRA very much, nor have I ever donated to them or been a member. I'm just curious as to how you see them as being the source to blame.

ojbyrne 9y ago
I’m not sure what I need to elaborate. The NRA promotes wider gun ownership and more expansive concealed carry. Police use wider ownership of guns and concealed carry to justify more use of deadly force and militarization. In any other country than the US, this feedback loop would be obvious. In the US the NRA works to blur the obvious by talking about “responsible gun owners” while eliding the leakage between responsible and irresponsible owners.
- KGIII 9y ago
  And this led to the police militarization?
  - ojbyrne 9y ago
    It's not the only cause (I'll save you the rant on US defense spending, you can watch Why We Fight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/) , but it's a positive feedback loop. I don't believe I used the word "led" or suggested one caused the other. I am suggesting that once gun ownership (and concealed carry) and police militarization are established, one reinforces the other.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Ah, you said blame them. I'd assumerd that meant you felt they were the cause of both. I was pretty confused. Thanks for clearing that up. I am a fan of responsible firearm ownership, but not the NRA - by the way. I don't know if I'd blame them, but I'd agree that they contribute to the 'gun culture' that ends up with irresponsible people wanting to own firearms.