6 ms·

Many gun control advocates see removing guns from private hands as a first step towards disarming the police. This is often couched in terms of a comparison wit

Many gun control advocates see removing guns from private hands as a first step towards disarming the police. This is often couched in terms of a comparison with British policing: the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them. However, most American police and sheriff's departments tend to support gun ownership. Maybe because they are as aware as anyone of the saying: "When seconds count, police are only minutes away.".

roenxi 7y ago
The gun control advocates currently don't have the numbers to disarm the population. That suggests that if they do get the numbers it will be in an alliance with the people who like centralised government power - ie, the sort of people who look at Hong Kong and think that it is a better state of affairs than open rebellion. Not an invalid view, and not as unpopular as people might expect - there is a big chunk of the population that trusts authority and values stability. From that perspective, it is likely that any gun control legislation will increase the power difference between individuals and the state.
- shpongled 7y ago
  The thing is, they will never have the numbers to disarm the population, at least in the door-to-door sense. You'd have to be a moron to sign up for that job. All gun control is to increase the power difference between individuals and the state, because armed individuals are the final check on the state - the state's entire power derives from a monopoly on violence. I'm hoping more people will do like you and draw conclusions to Hong Kong. When 50%+ of your populace has taken to the streets, and still can't achieve their goals it should be illuminating.
some_random 7y ago
They support white, conservative men having some guns, sometimes. If you're the wrong color, have the wrong politics, are a women (sometimes), like the wrong kind of guns, or are just unlucky, they absolutely do not support you.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Dave Chappelle has joked that the best way to institute comprehensive gun control would be for minorities to start arming themselves en masse.
  - kirubakaran 7y ago
    Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
  - kevinh 7y ago
    This is a joke with a real history—the Mulford Act was passed in California in the 1960s as a response to the Black Panthers arming themselves and patrolling the streets. I would imagine this isn't the only example.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  They really do support everyone owning guns. Think about it -- cops in LA are not all the same color, same politics, or same gender. Not sure what you think a real police department in any major city actually looks like.
pmoriarty 7y ago
"the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them" From what I've read, this has been changing in recent years, with British police getting more and more armed, apparently in response to terrorists and organized crime being better armed. So the US and British police are converging, but perhaps not in the way that gun control advocates might have hoped.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  A regular officer in the UK still doesn’t carry a firearm. There ARE plenty of Firearms Officers around but they receive significantly more training than a typical US officer and are usually only there to respond to armed crime, or at major airports etc.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The Police Federation, the association for low and medium rank police, regularly sounds out officers' view of their being armed. The public is keener on armed police than the police are - thanks to idiot perspectives from the likes of the Daily Mail. Police themselves are always overwhelmingly against - like usually 80 or 90% against when polled. They get tasers - though even those don't seem universal - even that was considered a step too far by many. Firearms officers will remain - thankfully - volunteers subject to significant extra training, psychological screening and oversight. When mistakes or negligence happen they make front page news. There are more firearms units and more in visible positions like airports and other protection than there used to be, but they remain a small minority of the overall.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    When mistakes or negligence happen, they make front page news in the United States, too.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      OK, then I should have expressed it better - it's vanishingly rare. Even armed officers are expected to de-escalate when possible, rather than shoot. There's been some questionable sounding incidents amongst the very low numbers of actual shootings, and of course there are sometimes major cock-ups - a couple of which that sounded seriously negligent. Wikipedia says in the year 2011–12, conventional firearms were used FIVE times. At the time there were 6,756 Authorised Firearms Officers and 12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales. Which doesn't sound like UK:US convergence to me. :)
zipwitch 7y ago
The Dayton Ohio shooter earlier this year was killed by police officers 32 seconds after he opened fire. He killed nine people in those 32 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Dense crowds tend to end up with large casualty numbers like that, regardless of the method of attack.
welder 7y ago
> When seconds count, police are only minutes away ... to shoot you in your home. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-police-officer-shoots-woman-death-inside-her-home-n1065451 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-police-officer-sh... But really, I never comprehend why police support civilians having guns since it just makes their job more dangerous.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Probably should talk with them. Take a couple of shooting classes in any state and you'll meet a lot of cops really quickly.
  - welder 7y ago
    I've done that. I know the reasons they say, just stating that I can't comprehend why they value those reasons more than their personal daily job safety.
    - solidsnack9000 7y ago
      It would be a contradiction to choose a profession where you put yourself in harm's way to defend society's values of a just and free society and then try to pick away at justice or freedom in the name of personal safety. Oh, and: most cops know that the overwhelming majority of gun owners will never be a danger to them.
      - welder 7y ago
        Yes, but what happens when the harmless owner's guns are stolen? Now they're a danger.
- tbyehl 7y ago
  Because police leadership is elected, or appointed by someone who is, and their opinions tend to reflect the local politics.
- hanniabu 7y ago
mindslight 7y ago
That is common view, but unfortunately it ignores the straightforward answer of just disarming everyday police right now. Things like routine traffic stops should not be performed by armed officers. Parking enforcement generally doesn't worry about whether the person they're writing a ticket to is armed - it takes two to escalate.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Routine traffic stops usually involve checking for warrants. That is one reason they are performed by armed officers.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Sure, but current procedure doesn't invalidate what I said. Checking for warrants doesn't necessitate a physical escalation if they're found. If the person wants to speed away, tack it onto their list of charges and perhaps call in a proper team. Or simply stop checking for warrants altogether, so that every unlucky motorist isn't put into a situation that is primed to deal with a cornered animal. There is a deeper philosophical point that if the reason someone is being stopped is a moving violation, then that is not a cause to address anything besides that specific violation. Sticking to that would also help reduce the occurrence of "broken taillight" pretexts.
    - solidsnack9000 7y ago
      As long as criminals are aware that a traffic stop might result in their warrants being found and their later arrest, they have every reason to shoot first and ask questions later.
      - mindslight 7y ago
        This model of a criminal is overly simplistic - shooting only happens if it is required to get away. If, from the perspective of traffic enforcement, a motorist refuses to stop or just speeds away, then there is no cornered animal that needs to escape, and hence no gunfire.
onion2k 7y ago
This is often couched in terms of a comparison with British policing: the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them. It's becoming more and more common to see British police with guns at events, central stations, etc (and not just handguns.. they carry MP5s). It's apparently to give the public confidence that terrorists won't attack but in reality it just makes me more scared of being shot by the police.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  British training reaches some real high points. The SAS famously used MP-5s with flashlights on top and no sights — they were that well trained.

roenxi 7y ago

The gun control advocates currently don't have the numbers to disarm the population. That suggests that if they do get the numbers it will be in an alliance with the people who like centralised government power - ie, the sort of people who look at Hong Kong and think that it is a better state of affairs than open rebellion. Not an invalid view, and not as unpopular as people might expect - there is a big chunk of the population that trusts authority and values stability. From that perspective, it is likely that any gun control legislation will increase the power difference between individuals and the state.

shpongled 7y ago
The thing is, they will never have the numbers to disarm the population, at least in the door-to-door sense. You'd have to be a moron to sign up for that job. All gun control is to increase the power difference between individuals and the state, because armed individuals are the final check on the state - the state's entire power derives from a monopoly on violence. I'm hoping more people will do like you and draw conclusions to Hong Kong. When 50%+ of your populace has taken to the streets, and still can't achieve their goals it should be illuminating.

some_random 7y ago

They support white, conservative men having some guns, sometimes. If you're the wrong color, have the wrong politics, are a women (sometimes), like the wrong kind of guns, or are just unlucky, they absolutely do not support you.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Dave Chappelle has joked that the best way to institute comprehensive gun control would be for minorities to start arming themselves en masse.
- kirubakaran 7y ago
  Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
- kevinh 7y ago
  This is a joke with a real history—the Mulford Act was passed in California in the 1960s as a response to the Black Panthers arming themselves and patrolling the streets. I would imagine this isn't the only example.
solidsnack9000 7y ago
They really do support everyone owning guns. Think about it -- cops in LA are not all the same color, same politics, or same gender. Not sure what you think a real police department in any major city actually looks like.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them" From what I've read, this has been changing in recent years, with British police getting more and more armed, apparently in response to terrorists and organized crime being better armed. So the US and British police are converging, but perhaps not in the way that gun control advocates might have hoped.

alasdair_ 7y ago
A regular officer in the UK still doesn’t carry a firearm. There ARE plenty of Firearms Officers around but they receive significantly more training than a typical US officer and are usually only there to respond to armed crime, or at major airports etc.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The Police Federation, the association for low and medium rank police, regularly sounds out officers' view of their being armed. The public is keener on armed police than the police are - thanks to idiot perspectives from the likes of the Daily Mail. Police themselves are always overwhelmingly against - like usually 80 or 90% against when polled. They get tasers - though even those don't seem universal - even that was considered a step too far by many. Firearms officers will remain - thankfully - volunteers subject to significant extra training, psychological screening and oversight. When mistakes or negligence happen they make front page news. There are more firearms units and more in visible positions like airports and other protection than there used to be, but they remain a small minority of the overall.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  When mistakes or negligence happen, they make front page news in the United States, too.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    OK, then I should have expressed it better - it's vanishingly rare. Even armed officers are expected to de-escalate when possible, rather than shoot. There's been some questionable sounding incidents amongst the very low numbers of actual shootings, and of course there are sometimes major cock-ups - a couple of which that sounded seriously negligent. Wikipedia says in the year 2011–12, conventional firearms were used FIVE times. At the time there were 6,756 Authorised Firearms Officers and 12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales. Which doesn't sound like UK:US convergence to me. :)

zipwitch 7y ago

The Dayton Ohio shooter earlier this year was killed by police officers 32 seconds after he opened fire. He killed nine people in those 32 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting

solidsnack9000 7y ago
Dense crowds tend to end up with large casualty numbers like that, regardless of the method of attack.

welder 7y ago

> When seconds count, police are only minutes away ... to shoot you in your home. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-police-officer-shoots-woman-death-inside-her-home-n1065451 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-police-officer-sh... But really, I never comprehend why police support civilians having guns since it just makes their job more dangerous.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
Probably should talk with them. Take a couple of shooting classes in any state and you'll meet a lot of cops really quickly.
- welder 7y ago
  I've done that. I know the reasons they say, just stating that I can't comprehend why they value those reasons more than their personal daily job safety.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    It would be a contradiction to choose a profession where you put yourself in harm's way to defend society's values of a just and free society and then try to pick away at justice or freedom in the name of personal safety. Oh, and: most cops know that the overwhelming majority of gun owners will never be a danger to them.
    - welder 7y ago
      Yes, but what happens when the harmless owner's guns are stolen? Now they're a danger.
tbyehl 7y ago
Because police leadership is elected, or appointed by someone who is, and their opinions tend to reflect the local politics.
hanniabu 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

That is common view, but unfortunately it ignores the straightforward answer of just disarming everyday police right now. Things like routine traffic stops should not be performed by armed officers. Parking enforcement generally doesn't worry about whether the person they're writing a ticket to is armed - it takes two to escalate.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
Routine traffic stops usually involve checking for warrants. That is one reason they are performed by armed officers.
- mindslight 7y ago
  Sure, but current procedure doesn't invalidate what I said. Checking for warrants doesn't necessitate a physical escalation if they're found. If the person wants to speed away, tack it onto their list of charges and perhaps call in a proper team. Or simply stop checking for warrants altogether, so that every unlucky motorist isn't put into a situation that is primed to deal with a cornered animal. There is a deeper philosophical point that if the reason someone is being stopped is a moving violation, then that is not a cause to address anything besides that specific violation. Sticking to that would also help reduce the occurrence of "broken taillight" pretexts.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    As long as criminals are aware that a traffic stop might result in their warrants being found and their later arrest, they have every reason to shoot first and ask questions later.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      This model of a criminal is overly simplistic - shooting only happens if it is required to get away. If, from the perspective of traffic enforcement, a motorist refuses to stop or just speeds away, then there is no cornered animal that needs to escape, and hence no gunfire.

onion2k 7y ago

This is often couched in terms of a comparison with British policing: the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them. It's becoming more and more common to see British police with guns at events, central stations, etc (and not just handguns.. they carry MP5s). It's apparently to give the public confidence that terrorists won't attack but in reality it just makes me more scared of being shot by the police.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
British training reaches some real high points. The SAS famously used MP-5s with flashlights on top and no sights — they were that well trained.