It seems as though you’re correcting me saying they’re not responsible for protecting public safety, by telling me they’re not responsible for protecting public safety. If you say so.
Why do they need guns to not protect public safety not protect public safety? Seems as though having all police carry a tool literally designed to kill people at the press of a button at all times might enable, and potentially encourage them to kill members of the community.
Bingo! This guy just shot his own argument in the foot. (pun intend) “So if police have no obligation to protect the community they patrol than not having a gun should be a problem.” but simultaneously boot lickers will also argue they need guns to stop the methical bad guy with a gun. Remember everyone, giving the state/government a license to do violence will never just be used against just those “bad people / enemies” it will also be used to subjugate the citizens
Except that wasn’t the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.
“It will also be used to subjugate the citizen”
All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.
The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.
They are not legally required to, they however are expected to.
Just like you are not legally required to do your job (with rare exceptions), but you are still expected to and would certainly like the equipment to do it safely.
“It seems as though”
Things are not always what the seem prima facie, perhaps you should be studying more English.
We have the legal precedent that protecting public safety isn’t their job because this was challenged in court, and their jobs were protected. They can’t be sacked for not doing what’s not their job.
If I don’t do my job, I get sacked - I assume it’s the same for you… But what do I know - maybe it’s different for you enlightened English scholars.
Let’s try to bring you back a third time… Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button? We have courts to deal out death sentences with due process and separation of powers, other countries’ cops don’t need guns.
Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand, eh?
“Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button”
Why prohibit them? Everyone else can carry guns, why aren’t police permitted to have an equal amount of weaponry? In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.
Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton? It’s not that difficult, you characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.
“Let’s try to bring you back a third time”
Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I’ve already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.
You’ve been playing a grand Motte and Bailey, alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job, to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.
“Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand”
No, I’m not the one here who talks out of my ass. So let me ask you two questions.
How many people have been shot by police in the US?
What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter? Not an armed person, an active shooter that is firing a weapon to kill either police or another person. (You know a clear and obvious attempted homicide case).
Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn’t mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.
People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential. Keep in mind that the vast majority of police killings would be classified as self-defence if committed by any other citizen. There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).
This is an awfully long-winded way of asking “why not?” in response to being asked why police need an incredibly easy means of killing anyone they encounter if they seem it necessary.
Why prohibit them?
You’ve dodged my question again - who was talking about prohibiting then from carrying guns? Why do we need to hand all police the ability to Kelly people with the press of a button?This is what we call a mott and bailey
In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.
You’d need to point out why this is bad - you’re supporting my assertions otherwise.
Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton?
You can do it with your bare hands - what’s your point?
characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.
There’s a reason “you brought a gun to a knife fight” is a thing - with a gun, you can stand back and execute people with the press of a button. Not so much with a baton. This is self-evidently dumb - how many people are killed by police batons?
Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I’ve already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.
Flatly refuse to acknowledge what? feel free to quote where you explained why police need to carry guns when they don’t in other countries - I’ll wait.
You’ve been playing a grand Motte and Bailey
Go on, language lord - pull a definition of mott and bailey, and tell me it’s relevant here.
alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job
That’s a long, rather dishonest bow to draw. Their laziness is also irrelevant - why would you lie to create this narrative? We’ve already established that protecting people explicitly isn’t their job.
to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.
Speaking of long, dishonest bows… I’ve simply asked why they need the guns. As for the 9mm, you might want to look at where a huge chunk of the military equipment from the past few decades wars went, and how the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture are spent.
No, I’m not the one here who talks out of my ass.
In that case, it seems you’re so full of shit, it’s spewing from your fingertips on to the Internet. Maybe get that looked at.
How many people have been shot by police in the US?
They’ve fought the collection of this data - though they shoot and kill over a thousand people per year, trending steadily upward. There’s also race disparities in their victims which begs some tricky questions.
What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter?
Based on figures from NYT and statista, about 14/1048 in 2021 - 1.3% - fewer than the number that left the scene, fewer than the number that killed themselves, and fewer than the number stopped by the general public. What did I say about studying the topic at hand?
Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn’t mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.
Completely irrelevant statement with incredibly loaded language - why?
People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential.
Police killings are a leading cause of death for men aged 25–29 (Esposito, Lee, and Edwards). Why are you so willing to shrug your shoulders at it when you’re so incapable of articulating why it’s necessary for them to carry guns?
There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).
How would they have reacted differently without guns in say… Uvalde - there were 376 police there, armed with more than 9mms.
You’re a dogshit advocate for your views - evasive, dishonest, irrelevant, sensationalist language, and the closest you’ve come to an answer to why police need guns is asking why not and what wild happen if they didn’t have them.
“Asking why not, and what would happen if they didn’t have them”.
You realise this is the basis for arguing for the permissibility of possession of any object? Why do you keep denying this as an argument? (Because you are stupid).
What’s stupid is asking me to make your argument for you when I’ve pointed to countries where there’s no significant downsides to not giving every cop a gun. Let’s say “nothing” and invite you once again to actually make a point.
Calling me stupid when you’re doing such a terrible job of showing it isn’t exactly having the desired effect, my dude.
It seems as though you’re correcting me saying they’re not responsible for protecting public safety, by telling me they’re not responsible for protecting public safety. If you say so.
Why do they need guns to
not protect public safetynot protect public safety? Seems as though having all police carry a tool literally designed to kill people at the press of a button at all times might enable, and potentially encourage them to kill members of the community.Bingo! This guy just shot his own argument in the foot. (pun intend) “So if police have no obligation to protect the community they patrol than not having a gun should be a problem.” but simultaneously boot lickers will also argue they need guns to stop the methical bad guy with a gun. Remember everyone, giving the state/government a license to do violence will never just be used against just those “bad people / enemies” it will also be used to subjugate the citizens
Except that wasn’t the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.
“It will also be used to subjugate the citizen”
All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.
The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.
They are not legally required to, they however are expected to.
Just like you are not legally required to do your job (with rare exceptions), but you are still expected to and would certainly like the equipment to do it safely.
“It seems as though”
Things are not always what the seem prima facie, perhaps you should be studying more English.
We have the legal precedent that protecting public safety isn’t their job because this was challenged in court, and their jobs were protected. They can’t be sacked for not doing what’s not their job.
If I don’t do my job, I get sacked - I assume it’s the same for you… But what do I know - maybe it’s different for you enlightened English scholars.
Let’s try to bring you back a third time… Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button? We have courts to deal out death sentences with due process and separation of powers, other countries’ cops don’t need guns.
Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand, eh?
“Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button”
Why prohibit them? Everyone else can carry guns, why aren’t police permitted to have an equal amount of weaponry? In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.
Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton? It’s not that difficult, you characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.
“Let’s try to bring you back a third time” Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I’ve already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.
You’ve been playing a grand Motte and Bailey, alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job, to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.
“Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand”
No, I’m not the one here who talks out of my ass. So let me ask you two questions.
How many people have been shot by police in the US?
What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter? Not an armed person, an active shooter that is firing a weapon to kill either police or another person. (You know a clear and obvious attempted homicide case).
Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn’t mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.
People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential. Keep in mind that the vast majority of police killings would be classified as self-defence if committed by any other citizen. There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).
This is an awfully long-winded way of asking “why not?” in response to being asked why police need an incredibly easy means of killing anyone they encounter if they seem it necessary.
You’ve dodged my question again - who was talking about prohibiting then from carrying guns? Why do we need to hand all police the ability to Kelly people with the press of a button? This is what we call a mott and bailey
You’d need to point out why this is bad - you’re supporting my assertions otherwise.
You can do it with your bare hands - what’s your point?
There’s a reason “you brought a gun to a knife fight” is a thing - with a gun, you can stand back and execute people with the press of a button. Not so much with a baton. This is self-evidently dumb - how many people are killed by police batons?
Flatly refuse to acknowledge what? feel free to quote where you explained why police need to carry guns when they don’t in other countries - I’ll wait.
Go on, language lord - pull a definition of mott and bailey, and tell me it’s relevant here.
That’s a long, rather dishonest bow to draw. Their laziness is also irrelevant - why would you lie to create this narrative? We’ve already established that protecting people explicitly isn’t their job.
Speaking of long, dishonest bows… I’ve simply asked why they need the guns. As for the 9mm, you might want to look at where a huge chunk of the military equipment from the past few decades wars went, and how the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture are spent.
In that case, it seems you’re so full of shit, it’s spewing from your fingertips on to the Internet. Maybe get that looked at.
They’ve fought the collection of this data - though they shoot and kill over a thousand people per year, trending steadily upward. There’s also race disparities in their victims which begs some tricky questions.
Based on figures from NYT and statista, about 14/1048 in 2021 - 1.3% - fewer than the number that left the scene, fewer than the number that killed themselves, and fewer than the number stopped by the general public. What did I say about studying the topic at hand?
Completely irrelevant statement with incredibly loaded language - why?
Police killings are a leading cause of death for men aged 25–29 (Esposito, Lee, and Edwards). Why are you so willing to shrug your shoulders at it when you’re so incapable of articulating why it’s necessary for them to carry guns?
How would they have reacted differently without guns in say… Uvalde - there were 376 police there, armed with more than 9mms.
You’re a dogshit advocate for your views - evasive, dishonest, irrelevant, sensationalist language, and the closest you’ve come to an answer to why police need guns is asking why not and what wild happen if they didn’t have them.
“Asking why not, and what would happen if they didn’t have them”.
You realise this is the basis for arguing for the permissibility of possession of any object? Why do you keep denying this as an argument? (Because you are stupid).
What’s stupid is asking me to make your argument for you when I’ve pointed to countries where there’s no significant downsides to not giving every cop a gun. Let’s say “nothing” and invite you once again to actually make a point.
Calling me stupid when you’re doing such a terrible job of showing it isn’t exactly having the desired effect, my dude.