5 ms·

> 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

by 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
The best way to protect against tyranny is an armed population
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Yeah but I think I'll accept some low chance of tyranny for not getting shot in the face. Reckon I can handle dealing with the tyranny if it pops up, honest.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    The founding fathers would disagree
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - shpongled 7y ago
    I feel the exact opposite way - I'd rather risk the minuscule chance of being randomly shot than risk tyranny. Far, far more citizens were killed by their own governments each year in the 20th century (Some 2+ million) [1] than are killed by mass shootings (< 50) [2] or all guns [3] in the US every year. More people are killed with hands and fists, or with knives, or hammers than are killed with AR-15s, AK-47s or any other rifle in the United States every single year [3], yet we don't call for bans on those? By the statistics, even if widespread gun ownership only has a 0.0001% chance of preventing tyranny every year then it seems worth it Furthermore, how do you reckon you would deal with tyranny, if not with arms? [1] https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM [2] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-... [3] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-20 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- teddyuk 7y ago
  In the uk we don’t have an armed population neither tyranny so are there alternatives?

by welder 7y ago

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

The best way to protect against tyranny is an armed population

scarejunba 7y ago
Yeah but I think I'll accept some low chance of tyranny for not getting shot in the face. Reckon I can handle dealing with the tyranny if it pops up, honest.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  The founding fathers would disagree
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- shpongled 7y ago
  I feel the exact opposite way - I'd rather risk the minuscule chance of being randomly shot than risk tyranny. Far, far more citizens were killed by their own governments each year in the 20th century (Some 2+ million) [1] than are killed by mass shootings (< 50) [2] or all guns [3] in the US every year. More people are killed with hands and fists, or with knives, or hammers than are killed with AR-15s, AK-47s or any other rifle in the United States every single year [3], yet we don't call for bans on those? By the statistics, even if widespread gun ownership only has a 0.0001% chance of preventing tyranny every year then it seems worth it Furthermore, how do you reckon you would deal with tyranny, if not with arms? [1] https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM [2] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-... [3] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-20 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
teddyuk 7y ago
In the uk we don’t have an armed population neither tyranny so are there alternatives?