I’m starting to think that police should be using non-lethal weapons only. There have been way too many questionable shooting and killings by the police throughout the country.
Yes? No?
Until the populace at large makes a similar concession to common sense, it is tactically inelegant.
Yes, and maybe they should carry some kind of shield instead. Made out of something indestructible, for when the bad guys start shooting at them.
But seriously, you can’t disarm the police until you’ve disarmed the bulk of the populace first. Just not practical otherwise.
Oh I’m not advocating disarming the public at all. I’m very pro second amendment and a persons God given right to bear arms and to defend themselves but I don’t think the government being armed is a good thing at all.
Australian and Canadian cops carry guns and we don’t have as many killings so I don’t that cops carrying guns is the issue. The issue are the prevalence of crime, low safety net and of course the availability of guns, until these are addressed the killings will go on.
Tasers, capsicum spray, no “one ups” and better training could potentially lower the rate but from what I can glean from my readings it seems like American police see guns as a tool rather than a last resort. But maybe that’s media bias?
FYI “one ups” is when a police officer is on patrol alone, not sure if this is an issue but a scared person may use deadly force if he/she doesn’t have back up on the spot.
Hey if police want to have shields I’m all for it.
I can see some ideas that would be theoretically calming. The police might leave their guns in their squad cars, rather than having them right there on their hips. You might have two classes of policeman, the street constable who doesn’t have a gun, and the backup officer, who does.
In practice, given the American habits of violence, I think this would just lead to more casualties among the police, rather than fewer casualties among the citizenry. It would probably lead to greater contempt for policemen, and less legitimacy for the law.
Are the police officers not citizens? Do they lose their citizenship upon becoming agents of the government? Should they not, as citizens, also have the right to bear arms to protect themselves.
Empirical evidence suggests they might be more in need of such protection then most people.
I think your position lacks consistancy.
I don’t agree with them having tasers either. I’ve read that people have had heart attacks as a result of being tasered.
Obviously if they are working for the government than they aren’t acting as private citizens. I would really like to know how they need more protection than what they already have. The police today have become militarized and view the public as the enemy. That’s not a group I want having more power.
How exactly is that? It would be the other way around. People would have less reason to fear them or worry about being assaulted/killed.
Why obviously? An employer could forbid their employees from carrying firearms at work. Or compel them to. Or leave it up their own conscience. In which case: why would they be barred from carrying firearms just because their employer is the government?
I think you’ve become confused Cap. Your question was whether the police should retain their guns - that is have the same amount of power. Or lose their guns - have less power.
Now you’re arguing against them having more power? No one has suggested that in this thread. Who are you arguing against?
What if they just carried Nunchaku, more hilarious than a baton or gun.
Tasers have a much lower mortality rate than guns. Don’t let the desire for perfection prevent a drastic improvement over the status quo.
we should just get rid of cops and fix income inequality
if we had a universal basic income there would be no crime
So how do you explain the Menendez brothers, Bernard Madoff, and Ken Lay?
Yes in relatively small percentage of cases due to underlying medical conditions. Unfortunately it is not possible to take a medical history while someone is acting in a manner which requires them to be tased. The alternate to being tased would be for the police to have to use physical force to subdue a combative and non-compliant subject. Which could and has led to heart attacks in people with underlying medical problems.
So no crime in Communist countries?
Tasers, like everything else in the police arsenal, have been subject to overuse and abuse. However, they were a step in the right direction because most of the time that don’t cause lasting injury or pain. The discomfort stops as soon as the current is cut. This is in contrast to getting pepper sprayed where the pain just keeps on keeping on, though physical damage is very rare. More importantly, tasers were an improvement over that old stand-by: the baton. Batons do cause lasting injury and pain even when they are properly used. Improperly used, they easily cause disfigurement, permanent injury, and death.
:eek: No comment necessary.