6 ms·

If the evidence is clear then I recommend that president be protected with disarmed secret service people.

playeren 6y ago
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? It seems tenuous at best to assume reducing illegal firearms among a population, has the same effect as reducing firearms among law enforcement.
- gregors 6y ago
  Police gun related killings of 1K per year are rolled into yearly firearm deaths. That would at least be 1K less on that chart. A definite win for removing firearms from law enforcement, the charts never lie. Also I have no idea if I'm making those numbers up. It's just what I've heard in passing.
- purple-again 6y ago
  Not the OP but it’s not hard to get a charitable interpretation of his point. You know why gun ownership is important because you surround yourself with men holding guns. But while you do that you want to take away my gun? I don’t have a ring of men standing around me, it’s just me between my family and the world. It’s literally equivalent to Bill Gates telling us how critical the coming ecological crisis is going to be while his family lives in a mansion. It’s okay though because he paid your family to live in a cardboard box so he can claim he’s carbon neutral. When he moves his family into a 300 square foot home so will I and when you put your guns down, you can talk to me about mine.
  - playeren 6y ago
    Ok, fair enough. By surrounding myself with men holding guns - do you mean law enforcement and military? In that case I don't see a disconnect between supporting issuing firearms in a highly regulated way to law enforcement, and not supporting widespread use among a population. I don't think your Bill Gates analogy makes any sense at all. His work in his foundation, and the expertise he has access to, seems pretty removed from the size of house he chooses to live in. Is your argument that he needs a certain moral justification for warning about climate change? Or that his immense wealth disqualifies him from discussing science?
    - thatcat 6y ago
      Secret service is personal protection not law enforcement or military. BG has plenty of resources and is essentially virtue signalling a lifestyle of carbon neutrality while his actual life is one that would be extremely unsustainable if many other people did the same.
      - playeren 6y ago
        From secretservice.gov (emphasis mine): "The United States Secret Service is a _federal law enforcement agency_ under the Department of Homeland Security charged with conducting criminal investigations and protecting U.S. political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government." I haven't heard Bill Gates pushing certain lifestyle choices in regards to climate change, but rather trying to influence policy. Examples to the contrary are welcome.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
DickingAround 6y ago
Perhaps a more direct way of saying this is: If individuals are not able to use tools to defend themselves, then the police should take the role of specifically defending all people (like they do with government officials) and be culpable if they fail to protect those people. And if they're not willing to sign up for that (i.e. you can sue the police if they fail to protect you) then the police should not disarm you.
- myth2018 6y ago
  I would agree with you if and only if firearms were a good defense mechanism when it comes to citizens dealing with day-to-day crime. Experience shows that, on such situations, firearms are good for attacking but terrible for defending. It all boils down to the element of surprise: the thief knows he's going to attack you, but you are not aware of it, giving you no adequate time to respond. There are some cases of success, usually extensively mentioned by supporters, but the reaction is often conducted by a third party who arrived at the situation after the first approach, or when the criminal is distracted, which makes all the difference, since it transfers the element of surprise to the victim. I would be more inclined to agree with lesser firearm restrictions if the government were talking more about training, prevention and awareness, with guns being used only as a last resort in a broader defense strategy. But, we know that's not what's happening. They just try to make us believe we should react if we will.
  - wl 6y ago
    Guns aren't supposed to be a response to day-to-day crime, legally speaking. They're only supposed to be used as a last resort when death or serious injury is likely to be imminent.

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? It seems tenuous at best to assume reducing illegal firearms among a population, has the same effect as reducing firearms among law enforcement.

gregors 6y ago
Police gun related killings of 1K per year are rolled into yearly firearm deaths. That would at least be 1K less on that chart. A definite win for removing firearms from law enforcement, the charts never lie. Also I have no idea if I'm making those numbers up. It's just what I've heard in passing.
purple-again 6y ago
Not the OP but it’s not hard to get a charitable interpretation of his point. You know why gun ownership is important because you surround yourself with men holding guns. But while you do that you want to take away my gun? I don’t have a ring of men standing around me, it’s just me between my family and the world. It’s literally equivalent to Bill Gates telling us how critical the coming ecological crisis is going to be while his family lives in a mansion. It’s okay though because he paid your family to live in a cardboard box so he can claim he’s carbon neutral. When he moves his family into a 300 square foot home so will I and when you put your guns down, you can talk to me about mine.
- playeren 6y ago
  Ok, fair enough. By surrounding myself with men holding guns - do you mean law enforcement and military? In that case I don't see a disconnect between supporting issuing firearms in a highly regulated way to law enforcement, and not supporting widespread use among a population. I don't think your Bill Gates analogy makes any sense at all. His work in his foundation, and the expertise he has access to, seems pretty removed from the size of house he chooses to live in. Is your argument that he needs a certain moral justification for warning about climate change? Or that his immense wealth disqualifies him from discussing science?
  - thatcat 6y ago
    Secret service is personal protection not law enforcement or military. BG has plenty of resources and is essentially virtue signalling a lifestyle of carbon neutrality while his actual life is one that would be extremely unsustainable if many other people did the same.
    - playeren 6y ago
      From secretservice.gov (emphasis mine): "The United States Secret Service is a _federal law enforcement agency_ under the Department of Homeland Security charged with conducting criminal investigations and protecting U.S. political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government." I haven't heard Bill Gates pushing certain lifestyle choices in regards to climate change, but rather trying to influence policy. Examples to the contrary are welcome.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

DickingAround 6y ago

Perhaps a more direct way of saying this is: If individuals are not able to use tools to defend themselves, then the police should take the role of specifically defending all people (like they do with government officials) and be culpable if they fail to protect those people. And if they're not willing to sign up for that (i.e. you can sue the police if they fail to protect you) then the police should not disarm you.

myth2018 6y ago
I would agree with you if and only if firearms were a good defense mechanism when it comes to citizens dealing with day-to-day crime. Experience shows that, on such situations, firearms are good for attacking but terrible for defending. It all boils down to the element of surprise: the thief knows he's going to attack you, but you are not aware of it, giving you no adequate time to respond. There are some cases of success, usually extensively mentioned by supporters, but the reaction is often conducted by a third party who arrived at the situation after the first approach, or when the criminal is distracted, which makes all the difference, since it transfers the element of surprise to the victim. I would be more inclined to agree with lesser firearm restrictions if the government were talking more about training, prevention and awareness, with guns being used only as a last resort in a broader defense strategy. But, we know that's not what's happening. They just try to make us believe we should react if we will.
- wl 6y ago
  Guns aren't supposed to be a response to day-to-day crime, legally speaking. They're only supposed to be used as a last resort when death or serious injury is likely to be imminent.