5 ms·

> The more recent history suggests that the people who wish to deter or educate the cops are significantly outgunned Then these young people (in the U.S.) shou

> The more recent history suggests that the people who wish to deter or educate the cops are significantly outgunned Then these young people (in the U.S.) should stop fighting for gun control when it only works against them in times such as these. Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Could the police roll out tanks in response? Sure, but I do not believe the U.S. politicians would be willing to start all out war between police and civilians. I don't condone the looting and destruction of property. Having said that the curfews in place are a form of suppression/muzzling the peaceful protesters. The police have for too long had unchecked power in the U.S. I've always been taught to be respectful and have been treated in kind in my interactions with police (but I am white.) If a cop is having a bad day or he's just a bully, that should not keep bystanders from helping a victim of police brutality with the threat of "assaulting a police officer."

scarmig 6y ago
The idea that the situation would be improved by the protesters being able to shoot police is... Questionable. The better solution is unarmed police: billions of people live in localities where most police they encounter don't have guns and may not be even authorized to make physical contact in the case of a conflict. The idea that all police must carry guns and must be ready to use violence "to protect us" is one of those assumptions you assume must be universal until you somehow find out that it very particular to certain locations.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I wouldn’t go that far. The US has so many guns it would be suicide for police not to have them.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Just as the police have so many guns it would be suicide for the oppressed classes not to have them. (Just as we have seen.) The police in America are extremely well-armed, far better than the general public in most places. It poses a real danger, as we have seen playing out over the last few years.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    How would it be suicide? I walk around plenty of places in the US, many with lots of guns, and don't particularly worry about getting killed. It's only dangerous when you work under the assumption that the primary role of police is getting into altercations with people or doing things that require the potential for the immediate deployment of violence. The vast majority of police work doesn't require that. Some small proportion of police should be armed so they can be called in for the exceptional case, but that's not necessary for most cops. The potential cost and messiness of any kind of use of physical force (armed or not) is usually far higher than the cost of what it's intended to remedy.
  - h3cate 6y ago
    When you can walk into a supermarket and buy a machine gun off the shelf, I would agree with you. If you take the guns off everybody though, this changes completely. All of a sudden you don't need a lethal weapon and instead can start carrying none lethal weapons. That's a whole different debate though
    - scarface74 6y ago
      A “War on Guns” won’t take the guns from everyone. The “War on Guns” will target minorities just like every other “War on $x”. See the “War on Drugs” in the “inner city” and “Treat Drugs like a Disease” when it affects “rural America”.
- sneak 6y ago
  The protestors being able to shoot police is the situation now, presently, and has been for a long while. Many, many people have firearms in America. Police are not generally being shot at. The situation you describe is not a violent one. What I think would be a better situation is a much higher percentage of visibly armed protestors. You didn’t see police beating and attacking any of the armed protests last month, and there’s a reason for that that extends beyond their being mostly white people. People like to condemn the previous protests for being armed, and for protesting for something that was dumb (reopening businesses during a pandemic), but the armed part will become more and more important for any meaningful protest in America, as we have now learned that if you aren’t, the police will just come and attack you with sticks or gas or cars or the threat of their own rifles. People shouldn’t carry guns to shoot them, they should carry them to indicate to everyone around them that nobody wants a fight, which is generally the same reason police do. Criminals don’t attack cops in groups because criminals know that if they do, 20 cops have weapons that will be used against them in seconds. I would love to be able to say: “cops don’t attack protestors because cops know that if they do, 20 protestors have weapons that will be used against them in seconds”.
scarface74 6y ago
Could the police roll out tanks in response? Sure, but I do not believe the U.S. politicians would be willing to start all out war between police and civilians. Have you read about what happened during the Civil Rights Movement? How many MAGAs would even blink if police started killing Black people? More recently MOVE was bombed and no politicians thought twice. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/move-1985-bombing-reconciliation-philadelphia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/move-1985-bo...
- leereeves 6y ago
  > How many MAGAs would even blink if police started killing Black people? Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Fox News hosts, and even Rush Limbaugh have all spoken out against the murder of George Floyd. > “I hope these cops are dealt with good and hard,” Limbaugh said. “I’ve seen the video like everybody else, and it makes me so mad I can’t see straight.” https://www.dailywire.com/news/limbaugh-george-floyd-death-makes-me-so-mad-i-cant-see-straight https://www.dailywire.com/news/limbaugh-george-floyd-death-m... > "it was clearly police brutality and it was not conduct we expect of any officer," Cruz said. https://www.foxnews.com/media/ted-cruz-on-floyds-death-riots-the-law-should-apply-fairly-and-uniform-for-everyone https://www.foxnews.com/media/ted-cruz-on-floyds-death-riots...
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Where was all of these statements when Kaepernick was trying to bring issues about police misconduct to the forefront peacefully? He was calling the him a “son of a bitch”. You noticed he never called White guys storming into state capital with guns “thugs”. Even after they basically forced the government to shut down out of fear.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      Out of irrational fear. Those armed white guys didn't beat anyone up, throw rocks at police, loot anything, or burn anything. If Democrats have an irrational fear of "rednecks", they need to work on that. Whereas these "thugs" today doing all of the above aren't protestors, in fact I've heard many protestors speak out against them too, and they seem to include quite a lot of young white leftists just looking to cause trouble. The remark you're referring to was specifically about looters, so I think it's a bit dishonest to compare that to a group of peaceful protestors.
Nextgrid 6y ago
> Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? There are 2 outcomes here: 1) You get shot immediately by the police, chaos ensues but at the end of the day you're still dead. 2) You shoot them, harm/kill them and if their colleagues don't shoot you back there's still more than enough proof out there to bring you a lifetime of legal troubles, especially considering "self defense" laws don't apply when it's against police. In both cases, you're either dead or in the shit and nothing gets fixed. The US already proved that they couldn't give a shit about police brutality (otherwise we wouldn't have these protests to begin with) so more civilian kills on the leaderboard is just a drop in the bucket at this point.
- GiorgioG 6y ago
  There are more than 2 possible outcomes. The possibility of equal or greater force against you makes you think twice about escalating the situation.
Yetanfou 6y ago
> Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Can you imagine what these 'protests' would be like with Antifa thugs bearing rifles instead of the usual clubs, slings and other such paraphernalia? You'd have shoot-outs between them and other militia, often equally fascist in nature but being less dishonest about it by not stating that they are 'anti' fascist. No, this is not the way to solve these problems.
non-entity 6y ago
> Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Branded as a terrorist organization so that use of extreme and possibly military force could be justified?
- sneak 6y ago
  That’s happening anyway now. Obviously the best thing to do is avoid fighting. However, if you’re going to be in a fight, it’s better to be armed than unarmed, if for no other reason than to encourage your opponent not to force a fight.

scarmig 6y ago

The idea that the situation would be improved by the protesters being able to shoot police is... Questionable. The better solution is unarmed police: billions of people live in localities where most police they encounter don't have guns and may not be even authorized to make physical contact in the case of a conflict. The idea that all police must carry guns and must be ready to use violence "to protect us" is one of those assumptions you assume must be universal until you somehow find out that it very particular to certain locations.

scarface74 6y ago
I wouldn’t go that far. The US has so many guns it would be suicide for police not to have them.
- sneak 6y ago
  Just as the police have so many guns it would be suicide for the oppressed classes not to have them. (Just as we have seen.) The police in America are extremely well-armed, far better than the general public in most places. It poses a real danger, as we have seen playing out over the last few years.
- scarmig 6y ago
  How would it be suicide? I walk around plenty of places in the US, many with lots of guns, and don't particularly worry about getting killed. It's only dangerous when you work under the assumption that the primary role of police is getting into altercations with people or doing things that require the potential for the immediate deployment of violence. The vast majority of police work doesn't require that. Some small proportion of police should be armed so they can be called in for the exceptional case, but that's not necessary for most cops. The potential cost and messiness of any kind of use of physical force (armed or not) is usually far higher than the cost of what it's intended to remedy.
- h3cate 6y ago
  When you can walk into a supermarket and buy a machine gun off the shelf, I would agree with you. If you take the guns off everybody though, this changes completely. All of a sudden you don't need a lethal weapon and instead can start carrying none lethal weapons. That's a whole different debate though
  - scarface74 6y ago
    A “War on Guns” won’t take the guns from everyone. The “War on Guns” will target minorities just like every other “War on $x”. See the “War on Drugs” in the “inner city” and “Treat Drugs like a Disease” when it affects “rural America”.
sneak 6y ago
The protestors being able to shoot police is the situation now, presently, and has been for a long while. Many, many people have firearms in America. Police are not generally being shot at. The situation you describe is not a violent one. What I think would be a better situation is a much higher percentage of visibly armed protestors. You didn’t see police beating and attacking any of the armed protests last month, and there’s a reason for that that extends beyond their being mostly white people. People like to condemn the previous protests for being armed, and for protesting for something that was dumb (reopening businesses during a pandemic), but the armed part will become more and more important for any meaningful protest in America, as we have now learned that if you aren’t, the police will just come and attack you with sticks or gas or cars or the threat of their own rifles. People shouldn’t carry guns to shoot them, they should carry them to indicate to everyone around them that nobody wants a fight, which is generally the same reason police do. Criminals don’t attack cops in groups because criminals know that if they do, 20 cops have weapons that will be used against them in seconds. I would love to be able to say: “cops don’t attack protestors because cops know that if they do, 20 protestors have weapons that will be used against them in seconds”.

scarface74 6y ago

Could the police roll out tanks in response? Sure, but I do not believe the U.S. politicians would be willing to start all out war between police and civilians. Have you read about what happened during the Civil Rights Movement? How many MAGAs would even blink if police started killing Black people? More recently MOVE was bombed and no politicians thought twice. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/move-1985-bombing-reconciliation-philadelphia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/move-1985-bo...

leereeves 6y ago
> How many MAGAs would even blink if police started killing Black people? Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Fox News hosts, and even Rush Limbaugh have all spoken out against the murder of George Floyd. > “I hope these cops are dealt with good and hard,” Limbaugh said. “I’ve seen the video like everybody else, and it makes me so mad I can’t see straight.” https://www.dailywire.com/news/limbaugh-george-floyd-death-makes-me-so-mad-i-cant-see-straight https://www.dailywire.com/news/limbaugh-george-floyd-death-m... > "it was clearly police brutality and it was not conduct we expect of any officer," Cruz said. https://www.foxnews.com/media/ted-cruz-on-floyds-death-riots-the-law-should-apply-fairly-and-uniform-for-everyone https://www.foxnews.com/media/ted-cruz-on-floyds-death-riots...
- scarface74 6y ago
  Where was all of these statements when Kaepernick was trying to bring issues about police misconduct to the forefront peacefully? He was calling the him a “son of a bitch”. You noticed he never called White guys storming into state capital with guns “thugs”. Even after they basically forced the government to shut down out of fear.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Out of irrational fear. Those armed white guys didn't beat anyone up, throw rocks at police, loot anything, or burn anything. If Democrats have an irrational fear of "rednecks", they need to work on that. Whereas these "thugs" today doing all of the above aren't protestors, in fact I've heard many protestors speak out against them too, and they seem to include quite a lot of young white leftists just looking to cause trouble. The remark you're referring to was specifically about looters, so I think it's a bit dishonest to compare that to a group of peaceful protestors.

Nextgrid 6y ago

> Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? There are 2 outcomes here: 1) You get shot immediately by the police, chaos ensues but at the end of the day you're still dead. 2) You shoot them, harm/kill them and if their colleagues don't shoot you back there's still more than enough proof out there to bring you a lifetime of legal troubles, especially considering "self defense" laws don't apply when it's against police. In both cases, you're either dead or in the shit and nothing gets fixed. The US already proved that they couldn't give a shit about police brutality (otherwise we wouldn't have these protests to begin with) so more civilian kills on the leaderboard is just a drop in the bucket at this point.

GiorgioG 6y ago
There are more than 2 possible outcomes. The possibility of equal or greater force against you makes you think twice about escalating the situation.

Yetanfou 6y ago

> Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Can you imagine what these 'protests' would be like with Antifa thugs bearing rifles instead of the usual clubs, slings and other such paraphernalia? You'd have shoot-outs between them and other militia, often equally fascist in nature but being less dishonest about it by not stating that they are 'anti' fascist. No, this is not the way to solve these problems.

non-entity 6y ago

> Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Branded as a terrorist organization so that use of extreme and possibly military force could be justified?

sneak 6y ago
That’s happening anyway now. Obviously the best thing to do is avoid fighting. However, if you’re going to be in a fight, it’s better to be armed than unarmed, if for no other reason than to encourage your opponent not to force a fight.