Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'd cite school mass-stabbings in foreign countries with strict gun control as to why banning guns to stop mass violence is like banning spoons to stop obesity. At the end of the day, the issue here aren't guns, its mental health health issues, caused by bad education system, combined with generally unhealthy low-trust society.

[Mithradates]

Look in the US where the community is baited by politicians and flooded with guns by gun sellers of course the police feel the need to be armed. Ditto Mexico which is awash with weapons too.

There is another world out there, where the US constitution's second amendment has no authority, and the levels a=of violence are less extreme.

I've never seen a drawn weapon on the street in my life. Not a knife, not a gun, nothing. The only gun owners I know are a collector (who likes to troll the cops by modifying his weapons to just this side of illegal-makes it hard for him to board a plan but his commitment is admirable) and some farmers. They don't carry, they don't need to. Of course we are a Soviet prison state...

I think the gun lobby has the gun debate in the US in a headlock, its almost impossible for people to even imagine life without being armed.

Im not talking about the US specifically, I live in a peaceful neighborhood still I prefer that police officers should be armed, as the saying goes better to have it but not need it. I feel its "normal" that they are armed, their duty is to protect other people, they need the means to do that.

Disarmed suggests that they were armed in the first place. But this wasn't the case in many countries. It's a societal threshold that once crossed, is difficult to uncross - as it becomes established as a cultural norm. As per the Peelian principles link I provided above... It changes the nature of the relationship between police and the society they serve - sometimes in ways that make a society more dangerous:

"In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

Im okay with that, but they should be armed.

Arming police has always been seen in the UK as creating a power imbalance between state and citizens. In the US, this perception of imbalance has been avoided because citizens are armed as well - making society overall, more armed, and debatably, more dangerous.

The support for arming police tends to follow the endless cycle of political "law and order" political campaign debates and isn't always evidence based, rather it is an emotional issue. Police in most countries where they go largely unarmed, tend to still have access to firearms - be they carried in car or available dependent on circumstances, they're just not carried when a lighter touch is necessary. Police when polled, tend to want access to firearms in response to the likelihood of terror attacks, rather than because they want them for daily duties, and even then their polling isn't overwhelming (trending 60-40 range) - significant numbers of police still prefer to go unarmed because of the benefit it has when interacting with vulnerable groups - even in the face of gun crime. Guns tend to be a crutch that is easily reached for in a situation - escalating, rather than looking to other means to de-escalate"

The influence of Peelian Principles was clearly referenced last year in New Zealand. Where after the Christchurch mass shooting in 2019, Police trialled permanently armed units. The trial was eventually cancelled because as the New Zealand Police Commissioner stated: “[They] do not align with the style of policing that New Zealanders expect - We have listened carefully to that feedback and I have made the decision these teams will not be a part of our policing model in the future. How the public feels is important. We police with the consent of the public, and that is a privilege.”

Speaking as someone who has lived long periods of my life in countries where police are armed, and others where they are unarmed, there is an noticeable difference in the trust with which police are treated by communities. It is noticeable even between culturally similar countries with similar crime rates such as Australia and New Zealand where there is even a lot of interaction and training shared between police forces across borders.

It's a fascinating debate that might be better served by another thread. Although 'tough on crime' does tend to be a hallmark of conservative political campaigning/fear mongering, so I guess it is relevant. I also understand how it might be hard for those in countries where police are routinely armed to understand how not arming them might actually improve how they interact in society. But ultimately I think it is captured by the statement policing for society, not policing of society.

And this is what I disagree with, I simply dont see how them being unarmed would help anything, or if it would help in some way, would that really worth the price?

2017 London Bridge attack

Eight people were killed and 48 were injured, including members of the public and four unarmed police officers who attempted to stop the assailants.

Every one of those officers could have stopped the attack right then and there with a gun.

The three attackers were then shot dead by armed officers from the City of London and Metropolitan police services eight minutes after the initial emergency call was made.

This doesnt seem to work, things can go from 0 to 100 in mere seconds.
They say when seconds count, police are minutes away. In this case the police were right there in time, but without the right tools on hand they couldnt stop the threat.

[chilon]

I'd cite school mass-stabbings in foreign countries with strict gun control as to why banning guns to stop mass violence is like banning spoons to stop obesity. At the end of the day, the issue here aren't guns, its mental health health issues, caused by bad education system, combined with generally unhealthy low-trust society.

Horrible example since a) no country has "mass stabbings" at the rate of mass shootings in the USA and b) knives are simply far less effective as a mass killing weapon. Anytime there is a mass stabbing, the culprit could have killed far more people had they been using a gun. For just an obvious example, Steven Paddock could not have murdered so many had he only been armed with a knife.

There are a lot of logical gun control laws that are not "evil democrats guvment wants take all guns away" that would certainly help at reducing the risk of potential mass shootings or at the least allowing more prosecutions of enablers such as the Crumbley parents.

Also, I've lived in a few very dangerous high crime, high murder rate areas over the year and never carried a gun around nor ever felt it necessary to carry a gun on my person for protection. If other people feel different for whatever reason that's fine for them, but its certainly not objectively true that carrying around guns is necessary for protection if you live in one of the most dangerous areas.

[Heathen Hammer]

Horrible example since a) no country has "mass stabbings" at the rate of mass shootings in the USA and b) knives are simply far less effective as a mass killing weapon. Anytime there is a mass stabbing, the culprit could have killed far more people had they been using a gun. For just an obvious example, Steven Paddock could not have murdered so many had he only been armed with a knife.

There are a lot of logical gun control laws that are not "evil democrats guvment wants take all guns away" that would certainly help at reducing the risk of potential mass shootings or at the least allowing more prosecutions of enablers such as the Crumbley parents.

Also, I've lived in a few very dangerous high crime, high murder rate areas over the year and never carried a gun around nor ever felt it necessary to carry a gun on my person for protection. If other people feel different for whatever reason that's fine for them, but its certainly not objectively true that carrying around guns is necessary for protection if you live in one of the most dangerous areas.

1) Communist China, for example, has insane gun control and their stabbing problem is quite real instead, while American "gun problem" is largely fictional and generated by establishment-sponsored journo sophistry where "guns bad because many gun crimes" without addressing the fact that most of gun crimes are just routine gang activity, caused by War on Drugs.
2) Ask any experienced policeman on whether he'd like to get stabbed or a 9mm slug. Those that experienced both will prefer the latter.

At the end of the day "mass shootings" in America are not statistically prevalent, they just get more attention in media. In the same way travelling by plane is MUCH safer then by car, but people still are irrationally scared of planes because plane crashes are in the news, while car crashes don't make it there unless giant cinematic fireball was involved.

Also funny that you mentioned Paddock's memory-holed case, I still can't wait for US government to explain how did the perp manage to shoot himself in the head and then have more brass fall into the blood pool after the fact.

The last part of your post is just an anecdotal statement and doesn't really change the fact that its rational to want to carry weapons in areas with higher crime rates.

[antaeus]

And this is what I disagree with, I simply dont see how them being unarmed would help anything, or if it would help in some way, would that really worth the price?

2017 London Bridge attack

Every one of those officers could have stopped the attack right then and there with a gun.

They say when seconds count, police are minutes away. In this case the police were right there in time, but without the right tools on hand they couldn't stop the threat.

I guess you've answered your own question: "would that really worth the price?". In most cases, it turns out it is.

High profile attacks like this are exceedingly rare. Most officers will never find themselves in this situation. Even in the US, where the gun is a cultural norm that is present everywhere, the vast majority of officers will never fire their weapon on the job, ever - let alone at someone. The vast majority of police work is in the community interacting vulnerable people where, as I have noted, the power imbalance that a gun brings can sometimes be harmful and building trust is essential.

It's an unpleasant conversation to have - to balance off the value of lives vs the best outcome for society. And as I mentioned earlier - arming police is often a one way street. Once police are armed, a culture around them being armed develops. An expectation. This includes by the people they confront who respond in kind. I wouldn't advocate for American police going without firearms except for when they're doing light social work. Although I do think it might be possible for Australian police to reduce their firearms use - if it wasn't for the constant focus-on-crime by Australian conservative media making it difficult to accept by the general public.

[Heathen Hammer]

I find the whole "cultural norm" aspect of the debate silly, with all the trying to present non-free nations as something normal, while in reality most of those anti-democratic laws started popping up only in recent decades, typically after some prominent shooting that had nothing to do with civilian gun ownership in the first place. A good example of that would be Australia, where guns were banned in a moronic way following an attack that had nothing to do with law-abiding gun owners, and now we see the chickens came to roost with Austrlians being stripped of basic individual freedoms and dignity.
Of course, the trolley philosophical questions on which options that would cost human lives is better, is somewhat of a difficult subject to debate, I think the principle one must abide first and foremost is harm reduction.
Typically disarmed societies are at the mercy of the state that rules them, hence why "gun control" is far more deadly then all mass-shootings put together. For example, Lenin disarming Russians led to Soviet regime committing biggest genocide in human history, which was outdone shortly after by Maoists in China, where mass genocide was also preceded by population's disarmament. So yeah, its better to have an armed society that would be able to stand up to the government, then "safe" society, where your basic freedoms can be taken away at government karen's whim.

[antaeus]

I can't debate with you heathen. You provide only opinion and no evidence. You're entirely welcome to your opinion.

[Heathen Hammer]

I can't debate with you heathen. You provide only opinion and no evidence. You're entirely welcome to your opinion.

Asking for "evidence" without pointing out the part of the argument you question is bad faith and considered to be sophistry, just saying. You are entirely welcome to your bad faith tactic, which I assume was unintentional.

[alhoon]

From the other thread.

I think need to provide therapy dogs and cocoa to students and media pretending that mostly peaceful capitol hill protests were like a "terrorist attack" are part of the same problem.

I am getting tired of far-rights claiming that an unlawful attack on a legislative body in order to overturn the election, an attack that left people dead and injured, with elected representatives having to hide to avoid getting lynched, was "mostly peaceful".

[antaeus]

Asking for "evidence" without pointing out the part of the argument you question is bad faith and considered to be sophistry, just saying. You are entirely welcome to your bad faith tactic, which I assume was unintentional.

No. I am not debating any of what you say, because it is all opinion. I don't need to.

You are challenging what is being said between Mithradates and I, but we are debating with examples that back our positions. You are not. Now if you said "this is my opinion because *insert referenced evidence that challenges what is being said here* then I could debate you. As it stands, you're welcome to believe what you believe, and there is no need for me to challenge it.

[Heathen Hammer]

From the other thread.


I am getting tired of far-rights claiming that an unlawful attack on a legislative body in order to overturn the election, an attack that left people dead and injured, with elected representatives having to hide to avoid getting lynched, was "mostly peaceful".

What constitutes an "attack"? Cops opening doors and letting protesters in and protesters walking around taking selfies, while occasionally wagging fingers and yelling at people does not really constitute attack, if anything the only violent side was the capitol police that murdered an unarmed woman. At the end of the day, what is highly questionable is the hysterical and outrageous reaction from American establishment, which I think was just pissed off that "plebs" dared to confront them, which shows that America is governed by pretentious cowards and guarded by clueless fools, as the old saying goes. I made this comparison earlier, but think about Teddy Roosevelt: this guy was SHOT by someone during a campaign event, and he still did the speech, with a slug lodged in his guts. Now compare that to American politicians that pretend that they were "attacked" just when they were confronted by the people they allegedly represent. What kind of leaders are they? The kind that is afraid of their own people.

No. I am not debating any of what you say, because it is all opinion. I don't need to.

You are challenging what is being said between Mithradates and I, but we are debating with examples that back our positions. You are not. Now if you said "this is my opinion because *insert referenced evidence that challenges what is being said here* then I could debate you. As it stands, you're welcome to believe what you believe, and there is no need for me to challenge it.

Gainsaying isn't an argument, my dude. We know you can do better.

[Cyclops]

...
I am getting tired of far-rights claiming that an unlawful attack on a legislative body in order to overturn the election, an attack that left people dead and injured, with elected representatives having to hide to avoid getting lynched, was "mostly peaceful".

Yes the failure of authorities to prevent the worst of the BLM riots and this coup attempt (Trump sent that armed mob there to pressure Pence) almost seems like an admission the system is broken and people should get to riot, and them maybe we'll charge a few pawns afterwards and is back to business as usual.

[Heathen Hammer]

If Trump tried to "launch a coup", he wouldn't tell protesters to stand down lol. But sure, coup against corrupt and kleptocratic corporate clique that starts wars, destroys environment, robs its people of their wealth via hyperinflation and covers up pedophile circles would be such a tragedy.

[antaeus]

Gainsaying isn't an argument, my dude. We know you can do better.

You're welcome to your opinion. We know you can not do better

[alhoon]

What constitutes an "attack"? Cops opening doors and letting protesters in and protesters walking around taking selfies, while occasionally wagging fingers and yelling at people does not really constitute attack, if anything the only violent side was the capitol police that murdered an unarmed woman.

May I ask, what's your stance on Rittenhouse case? You know, an armed person that shot three unarmed men...

[Heathen Hammer]

You're welcome to your opinion. We know you can not do better

Gainsaying with an ad hominem is still gainsaying, which isn't an argument, my guy. I get it, you don't like people having guns, because personal responsibility is somewhat difficult for people with liberal beliefs to learn to like, while at least on some level you realize that your position is emotional and you find in unpleasant that your beliefs are being smashed by reality. Its okay, I used to be a liberal with government-approved beliefs too when I was a younger lad and argued in the same way. It passes with age as your critical thinking skills accumulate.

[antaeus]

Gainsaying with an ad hominem is still gainsaying, which isn't an argument, my guy. I get it, you don't like people having guns, because personal responsibility is somewhat difficult for people with liberal beliefs to learn to like, while at least on some level you realize that your position is emotional and you find in unpleasant that your beliefs are being smashed by reality. Its okay, I used to be a liberal with government-approved beliefs too when I was a younger lad and argued in the same way. It passes with age as your critical thinking skills accumulate.

1. I provided evidence with my statements.

2. You challenged them with no evidence.

3. I point out your lack of evidence.

4. You fall back on claims of sophistry, gainsaying, ad hominem. Rather than righting your lack of evidence.

Now you can fall back on claims of sophistry, gainsaying ad hominem etc all day. But the point still stands that you are providing opinion with no backing. As I said, I'm OK with this. You're welcome to your opinion.

It's OK. I get it. I post my opinions here without evidence all the time. But we should be clear about what it is.

[Cope]

May I ask, what's your stance on Rittenhouse case? You know, an armed person that shot three unarmed men...

RH did not shoot three "unarmed men".

[Mithradates]

I guess you've answered your own question: "would that really worth the price?". In most cases, it turns out it is.

High profile attacks like this are exceedingly rare. Most officers will never find themselves in this situation. Even in the US, where the gun is a cultural norm that is present everywhere, the vast majority of officers will never fire their weapon on the job, ever - let alone at someone. The vast majority of police work is in the community interacting vulnerable people where, as I have noted, the power imbalance that a gun brings can sometimes be harmful and building trust is essential.

It's an unpleasant conversation to have - to balance off the value of lives vs the best outcome for society. And as I mentioned earlier - arming police is often a one way street. Once police are armed, a culture around them being armed develops. An expectation. This includes by the people they confront who respond in kind. I wouldn't advocate for American police going without firearms except for when they're doing light social work. Although I do think it might be possible for Australian police to reduce their firearms use - if it wasn't for the constant focus-on-crime by Australian conservative media making it difficult to accept by the general public.

Looking at most cases is not enough, all cases have to be looked at.

Its like the mandatory seat belt use, most people will not get into a situation where the seat belt would be needed, still the seat belt is mandatory because of the few cases when it will be needed. When you need the seat belt you need it there and then, you cant just have the belt next to you in a locked box/call the "special seat belt unit", You have to wear it all the time to be sure that you will have it when/if its needed.

Arming the police is a one way street because thats the right way, its a step to the right direction.
According to your link "(27%) of all officers say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job", thats not just a few, thats a lot. Considering a weapon can only be used as a last resort thats 27% of the police officers who could possibly be dead by now if they were unarmed.

"interacting vulnerable people where, as I have noted, the power imbalance that a gun brings can sometimes be harmful and building trust is essential."

What does this mean specifically? An example would be nice.

[alhoon]

RH did not shoot three "unarmed men".

Yes he did and as a reminder the group that entered the capitol hill included people armed with knives, molotovs and fire-arms. You know, things everyone takes with him in a "mostly peaceful" protest.