AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
All these political cartoons sure are convincing! Specifically, they've convinced me that political cartoons suck even if you agree with their message.
All these political cartoons sure are convincing! Specifically, they've convinced me that political cartoons suck even if you agree with their message.
You can't descalate the issue without the side with responsibility taking the first step, constantly going "well but the criminals..." forgets about all of the normal people who day-by-day are being scared into buying weapons because they've lost confidence in the police (either that they will do their job or that doing their job includes robbing/murdering citizens). De-arming patrolmen at the very least would be a huge step to diffuse the gun culture and lack of distrust in police in the country. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to in the short term so long term things end up better.
In the short term this will render the police the underdog to the armed criminals. Once criminals realize the police are unarmed crime will skyrocket because what do they have to fear?
This isn't really how "hardened" or "Career" or "armed" criminals think. Your ability to beat up or shoot ONE COP is not the key equation. What keeps cops from getting fucked up on the daily is mostly that they've called in the address or license plate or what have you before they knock on the door/get out of the car. Attacking a cop is like killing an ant: It releases pheromones that call more cops and make their mandibles and stingers spasm uncontrollably. They aren't knights errant or duelists, their true protection is their office itself and their arms are by definition for asymmetric use most of the time.
Which they can only do if they have to firepower to enforce it. Calling more cops won't do any good when they can't defend themselves from getting shot to death. That's what'll happen when they lose their monopoly on violence.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
You can't descalate the issue without the side with responsibility taking the first step, constantly going "well but the criminals..." forgets about all of the normal people who day-by-day are being scared into buying weapons because they've lost confidence in the police (either that they will do their job or that doing their job includes robbing/murdering citizens). De-arming patrolmen at the very least would be a huge step to diffuse the gun culture and lack of distrust in police in the country. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to in the short term so long term things end up better.
In the short term this will render the police the underdog to the armed criminals. Once criminals realize the police are unarmed crime will skyrocket because what do they have to fear?
This isn't really how "hardened" or "Career" or "armed" criminals think. Your ability to beat up or shoot ONE COP is not the key equation. What keeps cops from getting fucked up on the daily is mostly that they've called in the address or license plate or what have you before they knock on the door/get out of the car. Attacking a cop is like killing an ant: It releases pheromones that call more cops and make their mandibles and stingers spasm uncontrollably. They aren't knights errant or duelists, their true protection is their office itself and their arms are by definition for asymmetric use most of the time.
Which they can only do if they have to firepower to enforce it. Calling more cops won't do any good when they can't defend themselves from getting shot to death. That's what'll happen when they lose their monopoly on violence.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
There are areas of the UK which are also sparsely populated. These tend to be the least violent places. Is there a big murder problem in the Dakota badlands?
Alaska has major problems with violent crime because law enforcement is spread so thin.
Alaska has major problems thanks to dead end towns with no future but shitty subsistence fishing, rampant alcohol abuse, and racist attitude towards Natives, to name a few.
There are areas of the UK which are also sparsely populated. These tend to be the least violent places. Is there a big murder problem in the Dakota badlands?
Alaska has major problems with violent crime because law enforcement is spread so thin.
Alaska has major problems thanks to dead end towns with no future but shitty subsistence fishing, rampant alcohol abuse, and racist attitude towards Natives, to name a few.
This statement is true pretty much anywhere where there is a high population of natives.
There are areas of the UK which are also sparsely populated. These tend to be the least violent places. Is there a big murder problem in the Dakota badlands?
Alaska has major problems with violent crime because law enforcement is spread so thin.
Alaska has major problems thanks to dead end towns with no future but shitty subsistence fishing, rampant alcohol abuse, and racist attitude towards Natives, to name a few.
This statement is true pretty much anywhere where there is a high population of natives.
While true, there is a difference. No reservations or land specifically for them (Integrate or gtfo), mp explicit rights protecting natives, or actions/laws to help them.
I think the only thing Alaskan natives have is that, if I recall, they usually don't need hunting or fishing licenses. Past that, they're treated at or below black people in the rest of the country, by a large part of the population.
See a native in the Lower 48, "Probably has a casino" people joke. See one in Alaska, "Probably fucked up on mouthwash."
There are areas of the UK which are also sparsely populated. These tend to be the least violent places. Is there a big murder problem in the Dakota badlands?
Alaska has major problems with violent crime because law enforcement is spread so thin.
Alaska has major problems thanks to dead end towns with no future but shitty subsistence fishing, rampant alcohol abuse, and racist attitude towards Natives, to name a few.
This statement is true pretty much anywhere where there is a high population of natives.
While true, there is a difference. No reservations or land specifically for them (Integrate or gtfo), mp explicit rights protecting natives, or actions/laws to help them.
I think the only thing Alaskan natives have is that, if I recall, they usually don't need hunting or fishing licenses. Past that, they're treated at or below black people in the rest of the country, by a large part of the population.
See a native in the Lower 48, "Probably has a casino" people joke. See one in Alaska, "Probably fucked up on mouthwash."
Yes agreed. The isolation of the reservation tends to lead to the "go nowhere towns" aspect as well down here. The isolation aspect is what tends to make us Natives laugh at the "casinos" joke. Not because it is funny but because it shows a base lack of intelligence. Sorry I am getting OT.
You can't descalate the issue without the side with responsibility taking the first step, constantly going "well but the criminals..." forgets about all of the normal people who day-by-day are being scared into buying weapons because they've lost confidence in the police (either that they will do their job or that doing their job includes robbing/murdering citizens). De-arming patrolmen at the very least would be a huge step to diffuse the gun culture and lack of distrust in police in the country. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to in the short term so long term things end up better.
In the short term this will render the police the underdog to the armed criminals. Once criminals realize the police are unarmed crime will skyrocket because what do they have to fear?
This isn't really how "hardened" or "Career" or "armed" criminals think. Your ability to beat up or shoot ONE COP is not the key equation. What keeps cops from getting fucked up on the daily is mostly that they've called in the address or license plate or what have you before they knock on the door/get out of the car. Attacking a cop is like killing an ant: It releases pheromones that call more cops and make their mandibles and stingers spasm uncontrollably. They aren't knights errant or duelists, their true protection is their office itself and their arms are by definition for asymmetric use most of the time.
Which they can only do if they have to firepower to enforce it. Calling more cops won't do any good when they can't defend themselves from getting shot to death. That's what'll happen when they lose their monopoly on violence.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
I'm not sure about other places, but in the area of Atlanta I lived in pretty much all police injury or death was a result of "non violent situations." ie a cop pulls a guy over to tell him his rear light is out and the guy shoots him three times in the face as he approached the driver side window.
Or going to a house for a noise violation and being shot through the door.
I mean they were armed any way so that didn't make a difference at the time, but it's mostly just an example of how situations are rarely cut and dry enough to tell when the populace at large is easily armed.
You can't descalate the issue without the side with responsibility taking the first step, constantly going "well but the criminals..." forgets about all of the normal people who day-by-day are being scared into buying weapons because they've lost confidence in the police (either that they will do their job or that doing their job includes robbing/murdering citizens). De-arming patrolmen at the very least would be a huge step to diffuse the gun culture and lack of distrust in police in the country. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to in the short term so long term things end up better.
In the short term this will render the police the underdog to the armed criminals. Once criminals realize the police are unarmed crime will skyrocket because what do they have to fear?
This isn't really how "hardened" or "Career" or "armed" criminals think. Your ability to beat up or shoot ONE COP is not the key equation. What keeps cops from getting fucked up on the daily is mostly that they've called in the address or license plate or what have you before they knock on the door/get out of the car. Attacking a cop is like killing an ant: It releases pheromones that call more cops and make their mandibles and stingers spasm uncontrollably. They aren't knights errant or duelists, their true protection is their office itself and their arms are by definition for asymmetric use most of the time.
Which they can only do if they have to firepower to enforce it. Calling more cops won't do any good when they can't defend themselves from getting shot to death. That's what'll happen when they lose their monopoly on violence.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
I'm not sure about other places, but in the area of Atlanta I lived in pretty much all police injury or death was a result of "non violent situations." ie a cop pulls a guy over to tell him his rear light is out and the guy shoots him three times in the face as he approached the driver side window.
Or going to a house for a noise violation and being shot through the door.
I mean they were armed any way so that didn't make a difference at the time, but it's mostly just an example of how situations are rarely cut and dry enough to tell when the populace at large is easily armed.
So why use this example? They'd be shot whether they had a gun or not. This kind of anecdote is for encouraging all police activity to be preceded by guns drawn, shouted orders, and itchy trigger fingers.
You can't descalate the issue without the side with responsibility taking the first step, constantly going "well but the criminals..." forgets about all of the normal people who day-by-day are being scared into buying weapons because they've lost confidence in the police (either that they will do their job or that doing their job includes robbing/murdering citizens). De-arming patrolmen at the very least would be a huge step to diffuse the gun culture and lack of distrust in police in the country. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to in the short term so long term things end up better.
In the short term this will render the police the underdog to the armed criminals. Once criminals realize the police are unarmed crime will skyrocket because what do they have to fear?
This isn't really how "hardened" or "Career" or "armed" criminals think. Your ability to beat up or shoot ONE COP is not the key equation. What keeps cops from getting fucked up on the daily is mostly that they've called in the address or license plate or what have you before they knock on the door/get out of the car. Attacking a cop is like killing an ant: It releases pheromones that call more cops and make their mandibles and stingers spasm uncontrollably. They aren't knights errant or duelists, their true protection is their office itself and their arms are by definition for asymmetric use most of the time.
Which they can only do if they have to firepower to enforce it. Calling more cops won't do any good when they can't defend themselves from getting shot to death. That's what'll happen when they lose their monopoly on violence.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
I'm not sure about other places, but in the area of Atlanta I lived in pretty much all police injury or death was a result of "non violent situations." ie a cop pulls a guy over to tell him his rear light is out and the guy shoots him three times in the face as he approached the driver side window.
Or going to a house for a noise violation and being shot through the door.
I mean they were armed any way so that didn't make a difference at the time, but it's mostly just an example of how situations are rarely cut and dry enough to tell when the populace at large is easily armed.
So why use this example? They'd be shot whether they had a gun or not. This kind of anecdote is for encouraging all police activity to be preceded by guns drawn, shouted orders, and itchy trigger fingers.
Because it works both ways. It IS justification to have armed police. Just like the, most likely, equally low chance a cop shoots some one is justification to disarm.
Footnote: I am not stating it is a particularly good justification.
You can't descalate the issue without the side with responsibility taking the first step, constantly going "well but the criminals..." forgets about all of the normal people who day-by-day are being scared into buying weapons because they've lost confidence in the police (either that they will do their job or that doing their job includes robbing/murdering citizens). De-arming patrolmen at the very least would be a huge step to diffuse the gun culture and lack of distrust in police in the country. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to in the short term so long term things end up better.
In the short term this will render the police the underdog to the armed criminals. Once criminals realize the police are unarmed crime will skyrocket because what do they have to fear?
This isn't really how "hardened" or "Career" or "armed" criminals think. Your ability to beat up or shoot ONE COP is not the key equation. What keeps cops from getting fucked up on the daily is mostly that they've called in the address or license plate or what have you before they knock on the door/get out of the car. Attacking a cop is like killing an ant: It releases pheromones that call more cops and make their mandibles and stingers spasm uncontrollably. They aren't knights errant or duelists, their true protection is their office itself and their arms are by definition for asymmetric use most of the time.
Which they can only do if they have to firepower to enforce it. Calling more cops won't do any good when they can't defend themselves from getting shot to death. That's what'll happen when they lose their monopoly on violence.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
I'm not sure about other places, but in the area of Atlanta I lived in pretty much all police injury or death was a result of "non violent situations." ie a cop pulls a guy over to tell him his rear light is out and the guy shoots him three times in the face as he approached the driver side window.
Or going to a house for a noise violation and being shot through the door.
I mean they were armed any way so that didn't make a difference at the time, but it's mostly just an example of how situations are rarely cut and dry enough to tell when the populace at large is easily armed.
So why use this example? They'd be shot whether they had a gun or not. This kind of anecdote is for encouraging all police activity to be preceded by guns drawn, shouted orders, and itchy trigger fingers.
Because it works both ways. It IS justification to have armed police. Just like the, most likely, equally low chance a cop shoots some one is justification to disarm.
Footnote: I am not stating it is a particularly good justification.
I get the justification. But it is terribly flimsy. Anybody could be ambushed like that going up to a car or a house. Hell, there are a bunch of 'castle doctrine' defenses where people just killed somebody for standing on their porch. Being armed is no guarantee that you'll be able to defend yourself. Unless you approach every interaction with a gun at the ready.
And it's pretty clear why that is a bad idea. Disarming the police has to come with disarming the rest of the populace. Which is going to happen any day now...
Posts
Ahem.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I don't think that anyone is arguing that police should completely disarm. I think that the argument is that day-to-day policing doesn't mean that they need to carry firearms. There would still be police armories and firearms training and SWAT teams and such. It's just that Constable Bob, on foot patrol? Or knocking on the door of a suspect with no reason to suspect that he's a violent offender? No need for firearms.
Alright. I was mistaken.
Alaska has major problems thanks to dead end towns with no future but shitty subsistence fishing, rampant alcohol abuse, and racist attitude towards Natives, to name a few.
This statement is true pretty much anywhere where there is a high population of natives.
While true, there is a difference. No reservations or land specifically for them (Integrate or gtfo), mp explicit rights protecting natives, or actions/laws to help them.
I think the only thing Alaskan natives have is that, if I recall, they usually don't need hunting or fishing licenses. Past that, they're treated at or below black people in the rest of the country, by a large part of the population.
See a native in the Lower 48, "Probably has a casino" people joke. See one in Alaska, "Probably fucked up on mouthwash."
Yes agreed. The isolation of the reservation tends to lead to the "go nowhere towns" aspect as well down here. The isolation aspect is what tends to make us Natives laugh at the "casinos" joke. Not because it is funny but because it shows a base lack of intelligence. Sorry I am getting OT.
I'm not sure about other places, but in the area of Atlanta I lived in pretty much all police injury or death was a result of "non violent situations." ie a cop pulls a guy over to tell him his rear light is out and the guy shoots him three times in the face as he approached the driver side window.
Or going to a house for a noise violation and being shot through the door.
I mean they were armed any way so that didn't make a difference at the time, but it's mostly just an example of how situations are rarely cut and dry enough to tell when the populace at large is easily armed.
So why use this example? They'd be shot whether they had a gun or not. This kind of anecdote is for encouraging all police activity to be preceded by guns drawn, shouted orders, and itchy trigger fingers.
Because it works both ways. It IS justification to have armed police. Just like the, most likely, equally low chance a cop shoots some one is justification to disarm.
Footnote: I am not stating it is a particularly good justification.
I get the justification. But it is terribly flimsy. Anybody could be ambushed like that going up to a car or a house. Hell, there are a bunch of 'castle doctrine' defenses where people just killed somebody for standing on their porch. Being armed is no guarantee that you'll be able to defend yourself. Unless you approach every interaction with a gun at the ready.
And it's pretty clear why that is a bad idea. Disarming the police has to come with disarming the rest of the populace. Which is going to happen any day now...
I think the topic of policing needs a break for a few days. Please do not start a new discussion without consulting a D&D moderator first.