3 ms·

They both seem like very bad things to me, and I don't see how one helps with the other. Actually, they're probably two self-reinforcing parts of the same probl

• baddox 12y ago
  > I don't see how one helps with the other. Why not? If for every SWAT team member there were 20 armed civilians, do you really think there would be such a cavalier show of force from police? I suspect there are towns even in the US where the police would think twice about occupying the entire town, arresting journalists, etc.
  • sgdesign 12y ago
    Put this way, the solution now seems obvious: all these police problems that are happening in poor, black areas can be solved just by distributing more guns in inner cities!
    • baddox 12y ago
      Despite the ease with which I could turn that sarcasm directly around, I will resist, and instead point out that your sarcasm is mocking a view I did not express and do not hold.
  • krapp 12y ago
    The problem with this, for me, lies in the assumption that if you put enough guns on the streets, they will primarily be used to defend against tyranny. There are already places where the police are massively outgunned - I would assume this to be the case in any large American city. I don't believe the assumption that the police will respond to the threat of violent resistance with dutiful respect and civility is correct enough - rather, more confrontations which presuppose violence will escalate to greater violence. But it is certainly the case that you can't scale morality in line with tactical force. More guns in people's hands also means more guns in the hands of criminals, and gangs, more domestic shootings, more kids being shot, accidental shootings, etc.