Lol, you instantly resort to extremism in your reply. You pretty much proved my point how society is too crazy.
cops don't need guns but the more guns "we the people" have, the better? did i get this right? say it ain't so and help me stop laughing oh, i almost forgot, statist!! lol
except its not extremist. Your view is a line drawn in the sand in a very grey area. Everyone has different opinions. One.person in real life literally.told me pot jeads should get the death penalty. People arent ready for democracy Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Actually if you read.my posts on this thread i said quote "cops need guns because people have guns" I was just argiing with that idiot about the tank thing cause he wanted to play semantics. I personally think EVERYONE should habe guns Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Um, yeah pretty sure beheading is extremist bud. No one mentioned pot heads or beheadings but you and im not even talking about pot heads, as theyre typically non violent offenders. Youre right, everyones got a different opinion. No reason to get upset that mine doesnt fall in line with yours. Its difficult to post in politics as everyone wears their emotions on their sleeve, put words in other peoples mouths and are generally aggressive. Woulda been nice if you woulda had the emotional stability to jus ask me to explain my viewpoint rather than spouting off nonsense that had nothing to do with my personal view. Better luck next time I suppose
for me, yes. i would rather have 100 police who willingly enlisted die per day from not having a gun rather than one single innocent dying, ever.
in a way i know what you mean because i feel the same way about capital punishment; better 100 criminals be set free than one single innocent get wrongly executed or even imprisoned for that matter.
I agree. They choose the career they should accept the risk. Hell they don't even have a dangerous job as of now. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-top-10-dangerous-jobs-country-tanks/
exactly! for me anyway, thats the only reason to restrict police power. that, and i doubt the true value if having a gun for the average officer. the police shouldnt be purposely under protected, but when a gun is not necessary carrying can only invite unnecessary death.
Let's see the source for your claim, because the very article that you posted, which I have provided below from your posting, says nothing to the effect that no gun was found. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/albuquerque-police-kill-person-5-weeks/
This is completely false. Do you ever watch any sort of news? If you want, I can start a link-storm for you... Go ahead and let me know when you actually want to add something to the conversation, and not just spout off wholly unsubstantiated and biased off-the-wall quippage... Haha what? So the fact that they are angry makes it ok? Because if someones mad at the man, it just has to be justified. Because no matter what issue they have, it's always, in every single situation, the man=bad and citizens=good... Oh, and btw, this is wrong as well. As I've stated earlier, sporting events are a great example of just how wrong you are. Natural disasters can also be great catalysts for rioting/looting. I'm looking at you, Sandy and Katrina... But I suppose it really doesn't matter...you've made it clear that in your opinion, no matter what the situation, the government will always be wrong and the people will always be right. And here I am being called the slave. Police aren't people? They aren't allowed to protect themselves? Oh, and they buy billions of rounds every year anyway...one news agency decided to indulge in some shoddy journalism and before you know it people are shitting their pants, thinking the government is buying up all the ammunition in the world to use against it's own citizens. Way to jump the ammo! What I find so ridiculous about this is that in the end, no matter what kind of weaponry the police have, it doesn't matter. If shit really hits the fan, martial law is declared, the national guard is brought in, and they get their weaponry anyway. You're familiar with the national guard, yes? The guys with the actual tanks and planes and stuff?
Im curious...the way you worded this makes it sound like you think the men and women who make up the police aren't citizens, and therefore are...what, exactly, guilty? Guilty of what? And what you continue to ignore is the fact that the police use the threat of lethal force to protect people as well. Do you believe more people die as a result of an armed police force than are protected as a result from an armed police force?
what do people not understand about 99% of LEGAL gun owners not committing crimes with their weapon. Dont punish law abiding citizens for criminals who buy guns ILLEGALLY. And the cop thing, why would you choose to take away a gun from the person you call to stop anybody with a weapon? You want them to wait 10-15 minutes for swat? "hold on bro dont shoot me im waiting for the swat to come"
yes. i feel if you willingly enlist in the police force you should be subject to possible death rather than the citizens you swore to protect. i think policemen should follow whatever applicable gun laws are when theyre off duty. idc if they go from nothing but pepper spray when on duty to driving a tank carrying a SAW off duty, if its legal. i do not feel that for the majority of cops a gun helps in any way, for their own or innocent civilian protection. if there are stats to suggest differently please share, but it wouldn't change my fundamental stance. i do not know if more are protected vs innocent killed by police having a gun. those would be hard stats to gather, and really, irrelevant to my argument. one innocent dying is too many imo.
You are right of course, they did voluntarily enlist, knowing full well beforehand that the job has those kind of occupational hazards. But what they didn't sign up for is to be put in a situation where the chance of survival against an armed suspect is quite literally 0%. There has to be a balance between protection of citizens and the protection of officers. We live in an imperfect world, and no matter what, there is going to be collateral damage. The amount of training required for a weapon should be proportional to the destructive power of said weapon. Police realize this and follow along, to a degree. That's why not every officer has a sniper rifle on them or are qualified to drive specialized machinery. One could argue that the current training system is faulty, and I would actually agree with that. There def. should be more required of officers to allow them to get out in the field. But that's not what we are debating...for some reason you seem to be taking an all-or-nothing stance, and it just doesn't pan out, no matter how hard you try to 'rationalize' it. Rarely in this life are things truly all-or-nothing. It's a sign of maturity when you grow up and realize this. So you openly admit that there nothing can be done to change your stance...wow. Just... ...wow. It would be hard to quantify, you are correct. But it's not hard for us to use some critical thinking. The amount of people killed accidently via friendly-fire (or deliberately of course) is vanishingly small. Would it be logical to assume that if the amount of people saved by armed officers wasn't a great deal higher then the former, the system would pretty much have be restructured? How efficient could you be if you saved the same amount of the people you are sworn to protect as killed? But I guess it doesn't matter doing any critical thinking with you...you seem to have cloistered yourself in a reality where everything is perfect and when anyone dies, someone else is always at fault.
Two problems with this 1). This would make the citizens more militarized than the police. To achieve something like what the UK has, you need to ban weapons. I'm personally not for that as I have over 40 weapons. 2). If any crisis breaks out, police will be of no help. To that you might argue that swat will be on standby. Well swat forces aren't needed in most areas. So why increase tax payer takeout to pay for swat forces on standby that'd be rarely used? It wouldn't work. -Poseidon
Cops wouldnt need guns without a lot of criminals with guns. Why are their criminals? Why do they have guns? Most likely because they are poor, and made bad decisions. If we fight against poverty, people will have less reason to have guns and commit crime.