Should police have guns?

[Koldo]

This is where training & performance need improvement.

It is a tricky matter.
If you get too picky, there won't be anyone left. On the other hand, that is no excuse for not trying to improve, nor for allowing the outliers to do as they please.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the thing: I don't think you do.

The conservative "gun enthusiast" crowd seems very selective on the parts of the Constitution they'll support and when. They sure don't like the First Amendment when church-state separation is at issue, or the Sixth Amendment when they're talking about GITMO detainees being held without trial, or the Eighth Amendment when they're talking about refugee claimant families being separated.

They've got your back if you want to publish a Holocaust-denying book, though.

You're taking different groups, & then claiming they all share the same bad traits.
This is just wrong because it fails utterly to recognize diversity of thought.

 

[Curious George]

Depends. Sometimes they will be, sometimes they won't.
As for cops, more specifically, they need them if they want to catch armed criminals.

Cops couldn't stop criminals without guns?

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a tricky matter.
If you get too picky, there won't be anyone left. On the other hand, that is no excuse for not trying to improve, nor for allowing the outliers to do as they please.

I never said that doing quality work would be easy.
It's still worth pursuing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're taking different groups, & then claiming they all share the same bad traits.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about net effects and overall trends.

Despite a degree of diversity, we can still consider what would happen if we mentally considered the American people both with and without the "gun enthusiast" crowd: without them, there would be less opposition to the more left-friendly parts of the Constitution... despite the fact that the odd gun nut might be support those parts quite a bit.

This is just wrong because it fails utterly to recognize diversity of thought.

When @esmith generalized, you didn't have enough of a problem to call him out.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm not. I'm talking about net effects and overall trends.

No, you were talking about people...painting with a false & broad brush.
Verify this by reading what I quoted in #102.

 

[Koldo]

Cops couldn't stop criminals without guns?

Armed criminals ? Without a gun, the cop is at a major disavantage.
What do you suggest ? A taser ? Their range is pretty small and you don't get many chances to hit your target.

 

[Curious George]

As long as you and people like you value your precious guns over the safety of your families and neighbours, I agree: nothing will change.

Is it also fair to say that as long as police value their precious guns over the safety of innocents then people will continue to be wrongly killed by the police?

 

[Curious George]

Armed criminals ? Without a gun, the cop is at a major disavantage.
What do you suggest ? A taser ? Their range is pretty small and you don't get many chances to hit your target.

Sounds like guns are an effective tool to stop an armed or potentially armed criminal. If someone was in a position where they needed to stop them, they would be lucky to have a gun.

 

[BSM1]

I think @Thief is saying that if we get get rid of guns, we won't be allowed to have proper fencing around pools.

Not unless you get a concealed fencing permit.

 

[Milton Platt]

Recently Chicago police killed an innocent man who had detained a mass shooter.

This is followed by a recent killing of an innocent man in a mall who police wrongly supposed was a shooter in a recent event in Alabama.

Family demands answers after police kill man mistaken for shooter of 2 at mall - CNN

We can find other instances of the police killing innocents. So, I wonder, should we take away all police officers guns?

Lets ask the right question. Should police have guns if criminals are heavily armed with guns?

 

[ChristineM]

Cops couldn't stop criminals without guns?

They do in the UK

 

[Shaul]

They do in the UK

While many police in the U.K. don’t routinely carry firearms, they all have access to arms and/or armed support. In Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., all police are armed.

 

[ChristineM]

While many police in the U.K. don’t routinely carry firearms, they all have access to arms and/or armed support. In Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., all police are armed.

No they dont have access to arms but can call armed units, only these specially trained rapra response units are armed. The majority of policing is carried out unarmed.

Ni is a special case.

 

[Curious George]

Lets ask the right question. Should police have guns if criminals are heavily armed with guns?

Sure. Answer away.

 

[Milton Platt]

Sure. Answer away.

I think it would be immoral to ask anyone to go forth unarmed and face an armed criminal.
Under that logic, let's send unarmed soldiers into combat.

 

[Curious George]

I think it would be immoral to ask anyone to go forth unarmed and face an armed criminal.
.

I agree.

 

[esmith]

That's the thing: I don't think you do.

The conservative "gun enthusiast" crowd seems very selective on the parts of the Constitution they'll support and when. They sure don't like the First Amendment when church-state separation is at issue, or the Sixth Amendment when they're talking about GITMO detainees being held without trial, or the Eighth Amendment when they're talking about refugee claimant families being separated.

They've got your back if you want to publish a Holocaust-denying book, though.

Not sure what you are talking about in reference to church-state separation and the First Amendment
Gitmo detainees are not U.S. citizens, they are not on U.S. soil; therefore they are not protected by the Constitution.
What refugee's? All I see are people who have violated the law.

 

[esmith]

In what sense does it nullify what statement of mine ?

Your statement highlighted below (my highlight) in reference to :
Clearance rate - crime by type in the U.S. 2017 | Statistic

It is very very easy to blow some brains when you have the initiative. Generally speaking, the moment the criminal puts himself at risk is when he threatens someone to get what he wants. Had he merely shot the victim in the first place there would be nearly no risk to his life.
Unless your family is pretty wealthy there is no way they would be able to catch the killer.

 

[Curious George]

Not sure what you are talking about in reference to church-state separation and the First Amendment
Gitmo detainees are not U.S. citizens, they are not on U.S. soil; therefore they are not protected by the Constitution.
What refugee's? All I see are people who have violated the law.

Those seem like rationalizations. The 5th Ammendment refers to people not just citizens. And cruel and unusual punishment is a prohibition on the government, so refugee or criminal status does not matter.