8 ms·

Are you seriously suggesting that we disarm the police? "Stop it right there, or I'll... I'll get really mad!"

by mjfl 8y ago

jachee 8y ago
More like demilitarize them. Edit: To the point: Yes. Anyone who can't respect "Don't fire until fired upon" should 100.0000% be disarmed.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
blattimwind 8y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that the police should have rules of engagement far less strict than those applied by many militaries around the world in literal war zones while fighting actual enemies of their state?
AlimJaffer 8y ago
I think it has more to do with training and better use-of-force regulations. The police in the States appear to have a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality as evidenced by these events. Disarming them in a country like the US is impossible, but surely better training and stricter rules/penalties would help the situation.
mjevans 8y ago
It's appropriate for them to have 'less lethal' weapons. It is also far more appropriate for them to be trained in the proper use of force and de-escalation of situations. Peace officers are supposed to be professionals.
allday 8y ago
Hell, I suggest that we disband the police entirely.
bdcravens 8y ago
Perhaps there should be 2 tiers of officers, with appropriate training and psychological evaluations required for those authorized to carry firearms.
- spathi_fwiffo 8y ago
  This already exists, with SWAT. They like to shoot people (and dogs) for no good reason, too.
mozumder 8y ago
Yes. The police, along with everyone else, should be disarmed. NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Guns should only be allowed for hunting. Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't?
- make3 8y ago
  also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns
  - magduf 8y ago
    I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).
  - 15155 8y ago
    The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops. The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
      - 15155 8y ago
        At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.
rectang 8y ago
In other countries, not all police carry guns. Those countries are not suffering from the epidemic of gun violence which plagues the US. We are definitely doing something wrong, and they are definitely doing something right. So while we may not disarm the entire police force tomorrow, should we consider ways to deescalate? Hell yes.
mikeash 8y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that we should arm people who can’t even behave with at least the restraint that we expect of soldiers in war zones?
irrational 8y ago
The police in other countries function without guns.
matwood 8y ago
Yes, until they get better trained and stop shooting first. They should also get rid of all of the military style equipment. If they want to be soldiers, then go be a soldier...except soldiers have a set rules to adhere to before shooting at possible hostiles.
- krapp 8y ago
  Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else, and that right isn't predicated on training or trigger discipline.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Uhh, what? Yes, they do. We also, as their employers, have a right to restrict the choice of arms we supply them with _as part of their employment_. Or is your argument that police should be able to buy and have whatever weapons they like, without restriction, for their jobs?
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    As a private person, yes, they have that right. Doesn’t mean the police precinct needs to stock and hand out military or paramilitary equipment to all officers.
  - matwood 8y ago
    Then treat them like every other person. Claiming "I thought I saw a gun" after shooting someone means most of the population is going to jail. I get that accidents happens, but something has clearly gone wrong with either the training or lack there of.
    - krapp 8y ago
      I agree with you, one of the biggest contributors to police violence in my opinion is tolerance for it within the system.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
hosay123 8y ago
The UK has 4.9x fewer population compared to the USA, yet manages 246x fewer deaths due to policy activity. While some of our police are armed (covering Northern Ireland only - 1.65m population) the majority are not. The real problem is likely not having armed police, after all, Northern Ireland does not suffer a 246x increase in police-attributed deaths compared to the rest of the UK, but the expectation by police that theirs live are at risk - due to the common access of regular citizens to offensive weaponry
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Northern Ireland does not suffer a 246x increase in police-attributed deaths compared to the rest of the UK Well, not at the moment, but during the Troubles there were armed troops and armoured cars deployed on the streets. Quite a lot of people were killed by police and army shootings, some of which were extremely illegal (Miami Showband, Bloody Sunday) and one or two of which were actually prosected (Lee Clegg's shooting of Karen Reilly). Reform of the police was critical to peace there, and will be critical in America. America needs a peace treaty with itself.
jononor 8y ago
I'm saying they need to get their act together, and for that there must be consequences for not doing so. Make do-not-fire-unless-fired-upon standard RoE. Suspend or fire officers that violate it. Jail officers who kill or maim innocents. Put management that don't do their part on trial.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Are you seriously suggesting that we disarm the police? "Stop it right there, or I'll... I'll get really mad!"

by mjfl 8y ago

Are you seriously suggesting that we disarm the police? "Stop it right there, or I'll... I'll get really mad!"

More like demilitarize them. Edit: To the point: Yes. Anyone who can't respect "Don't fire until fired upon" should 100.0000% be disarmed.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

blattimwind 8y ago

Are you seriously suggesting that the police should have rules of engagement far less strict than those applied by many militaries around the world in literal war zones while fighting actual enemies of their state?

AlimJaffer 8y ago

I think it has more to do with training and better use-of-force regulations. The police in the States appear to have a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality as evidenced by these events. Disarming them in a country like the US is impossible, but surely better training and stricter rules/penalties would help the situation.

mjevans 8y ago

It's appropriate for them to have 'less lethal' weapons. It is also far more appropriate for them to be trained in the proper use of force and de-escalation of situations. Peace officers are supposed to be professionals.

allday 8y ago

Hell, I suggest that we disband the police entirely.

bdcravens 8y ago

Perhaps there should be 2 tiers of officers, with appropriate training and psychological evaluations required for those authorized to carry firearms.

spathi_fwiffo 8y ago
This already exists, with SWAT. They like to shoot people (and dogs) for no good reason, too.

mozumder 8y ago

Yes. The police, along with everyone else, should be disarmed. NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Guns should only be allowed for hunting. Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't?

make3 8y ago
also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns
- magduf 8y ago
  I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).
- 15155 8y ago
  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops. The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
    - 15155 8y ago
      At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.

rectang 8y ago

In other countries, not all police carry guns. Those countries are not suffering from the epidemic of gun violence which plagues the US. We are definitely doing something wrong, and they are definitely doing something right. So while we may not disarm the entire police force tomorrow, should we consider ways to deescalate? Hell yes.

mikeash 8y ago

Are you seriously suggesting that we should arm people who can’t even behave with at least the restraint that we expect of soldiers in war zones?

irrational 8y ago

The police in other countries function without guns.

matwood 8y ago

Yes, until they get better trained and stop shooting first. They should also get rid of all of the military style equipment. If they want to be soldiers, then go be a soldier...except soldiers have a set rules to adhere to before shooting at possible hostiles.

krapp 8y ago
Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else, and that right isn't predicated on training or trigger discipline.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Uhh, what? Yes, they do. We also, as their employers, have a right to restrict the choice of arms we supply them with _as part of their employment_. Or is your argument that police should be able to buy and have whatever weapons they like, without restriction, for their jobs?
- Xylakant 8y ago
  As a private person, yes, they have that right. Doesn’t mean the police precinct needs to stock and hand out military or paramilitary equipment to all officers.
- matwood 8y ago
  Then treat them like every other person. Claiming "I thought I saw a gun" after shooting someone means most of the population is going to jail. I get that accidents happens, but something has clearly gone wrong with either the training or lack there of.
  - krapp 8y ago
    I agree with you, one of the biggest contributors to police violence in my opinion is tolerance for it within the system.
- ceejayoz 8y ago

hosay123 8y ago

The UK has 4.9x fewer population compared to the USA, yet manages 246x fewer deaths due to policy activity. While some of our police are armed (covering Northern Ireland only - 1.65m population) the majority are not. The real problem is likely not having armed police, after all, Northern Ireland does not suffer a 246x increase in police-attributed deaths compared to the rest of the UK, but the expectation by police that theirs live are at risk - due to the common access of regular citizens to offensive weaponry

pjc50 8y ago
> Northern Ireland does not suffer a 246x increase in police-attributed deaths compared to the rest of the UK Well, not at the moment, but during the Troubles there were armed troops and armoured cars deployed on the streets. Quite a lot of people were killed by police and army shootings, some of which were extremely illegal (Miami Showband, Bloody Sunday) and one or two of which were actually prosected (Lee Clegg's shooting of Karen Reilly). Reform of the police was critical to peace there, and will be critical in America. America needs a peace treaty with itself.

jononor 8y ago

I'm saying they need to get their act together, and for that there must be consequences for not doing so. Make do-not-fire-unless-fired-upon standard RoE. Suspend or fire officers that violate it. Jail officers who kill or maim innocents. Put management that don't do their part on trial.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]