3 ms·

> Ban guns Wouldn't it make law enforcement a lot more difficult and dangerous if the police didn't have guns? Unless you didn't mean ban guns, but rather to

> Ban guns Wouldn't it make law enforcement a lot more difficult and dangerous if the police didn't have guns? Unless you didn't mean ban guns, but rather to give them exclusively to the police and military. Is that what you're suggesting?

mindslight 7y ago
Getting guns out of the hands of every day police would indeed make policing safer, especially for police doing traffic stops. Very rarely do parking tickets end up with armed conflict. There's this overriding myth that's been stoked by Hollywood et al that a "good guy" with a gun can just shoot everything up to save the day. There's no surprise what this narrative maps onto in the real world, where the results aren't predictably written to entertain.
jodrellblank 7y ago
I can list quite a few police shooting innocent people incidents from USA, and quite a few civilians shooting innocent people incidents from USA. Can you reference any incidents of people with guns using them to stand up to the police or military in recent (~20 year) history, in USA - and winning (whatever that might mean)? Any armed political protests? Any hint of a serious suggestion that a group of armed civilians could take on the US military and military-weapons-armed police forces if it came to a fight? Armed civilians don't mean civilians stand a chance against the police or military. They're outnumbered, outfunded, out-trained, out-equipped and whatever the out- equivalent of the state having sheerly more options, is.
- jbattle 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
- tengbretson 7y ago
  > Armed civilians don't mean civilians stand a chance against the police or military. They're outnumbered, outfunded, out-trained, out-equipped and whatever the out- equivalent of the state having sheerly more options, is. You're missing the point of an armed population and its ability to fight tyranny. First of all, the military has almost nothing to do with any of this. Tyrannical regimes have to maintain order at a hyper local level, which means either by police or police-like forces. Secondly, it has almost nothing to do with going "gun to gun" and shooting out a winner. Level of violent escalation and public support for the regime is the name of the game. When a population is disarmed a government can make political dissidents just disappear in the middle of the night without a sound. When there's even a possibility of an armed population it means if they want to take out opposition they're rolling up with armored vehicles, swat teams, choppers, the works. This sort of event gets noticed! It requires an explanation. It means live coverage, newspapers, choppers, etc. How many bloody shootouts can a regime survive while retaining public support? How many Wacos could the US have had and still maintain social order?

mindslight 7y ago

Getting guns out of the hands of every day police would indeed make policing safer, especially for police doing traffic stops. Very rarely do parking tickets end up with armed conflict. There's this overriding myth that's been stoked by Hollywood et al that a "good guy" with a gun can just shoot everything up to save the day. There's no surprise what this narrative maps onto in the real world, where the results aren't predictably written to entertain.

jodrellblank 7y ago

I can list quite a few police shooting innocent people incidents from USA, and quite a few civilians shooting innocent people incidents from USA. Can you reference any incidents of people with guns using them to stand up to the police or military in recent (~20 year) history, in USA - and winning (whatever that might mean)? Any armed political protests? Any hint of a serious suggestion that a group of armed civilians could take on the US military and military-weapons-armed police forces if it came to a fight? Armed civilians don't mean civilians stand a chance against the police or military. They're outnumbered, outfunded, out-trained, out-equipped and whatever the out- equivalent of the state having sheerly more options, is.

jbattle 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
tengbretson 7y ago
> Armed civilians don't mean civilians stand a chance against the police or military. They're outnumbered, outfunded, out-trained, out-equipped and whatever the out- equivalent of the state having sheerly more options, is. You're missing the point of an armed population and its ability to fight tyranny. First of all, the military has almost nothing to do with any of this. Tyrannical regimes have to maintain order at a hyper local level, which means either by police or police-like forces. Secondly, it has almost nothing to do with going "gun to gun" and shooting out a winner. Level of violent escalation and public support for the regime is the name of the game. When a population is disarmed a government can make political dissidents just disappear in the middle of the night without a sound. When there's even a possibility of an armed population it means if they want to take out opposition they're rolling up with armored vehicles, swat teams, choppers, the works. This sort of event gets noticed! It requires an explanation. It means live coverage, newspapers, choppers, etc. How many bloody shootouts can a regime survive while retaining public support? How many Wacos could the US have had and still maintain social order?