Debate and Discussion

If you really are anti-gun...
kyupol at 6:54AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
The main argument of anti-gun people can be summed up as folows:

MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME.

If that's the case, shouldn't you be against the militarization of the police? Because if you really believe that guns should be taken out of the hands of the average citizen, shouldn't the same be for the police? I mean aren't the police suppose to be EQUAL to us?

I also don't want the police to be totally disarmed. You know, a sidearm is fine to deal with the common criminal. Of course the police need that to do their job.

But why do they need TANKS and APCs? Why? Do the gangstas have armored vehicles and RPGs and artillery to worry about? Are gangbangers such a highly coordinated highly trained highly disciplined military force? I guess that holding your gun sideways makes it more accurate.

But why is that most people who are anti-gun have no problem with a militarized police?

What is it about the police? Are they some sort of god-like beings who are infinitely just and cannot deceive nor can be deceived? I see them all the time drive recklessly, drive too fast, beat the red light, beat the stop sign, display arrogant behavior, and beat up old ladies. Its as if alot of these police are former schoolyard bullies or something.

What happened to leading by example?

Think about that.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Custard Trout at 7:11AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
kyupol
But why is that most people who are anti-gun have no problem with a militarized police?

Most of us do? I have no idea which crevice of your arse you pulled this from, but it's simply not true.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:02PM
ozoneocean at 7:41AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,055
joined: 1-2-2004
kyupol
What happened to leading by example?
Police don't “lead”.

No system is perfect Kuypol. People do the best they can with what they have. Yes, some police aren't too bright and they have powers and tools that make them very dangerous people, but I've found that most police are pretty decent, ordinary people doing their job to the best of their ability.

Guns are very dangerous tools. There are good arguments for police not to have them at all, but it depends on the time and place, country, etc. I believe the UK police generally don't have guns, but they do have special armed squads that carry them. Various police forces around the world are armed differently, some up to a full military level. In some places around the world the police and army will support different political factions and this will lead to open warfare between them, that happens quite a bit actually.

Really though, it comes down to the culture of the system. If you have an idiot culture in a particular police force where people shoot first and ask questions later then things are pretty bad. In Australia in the state of Victoria the police there have a bad reputation for doing that. In the United States there was the case of those men leaving a nightclub after a stag-night and a couple of moron policemen fired something like 50 rounds into their car. Afterwards the officers were found to have acted very improperly.
Incidents like that happen, it's very true and we shouldn't pretend that they don't, but not in the majority of cases. ALL police are NOT represented by those sorts of idiots.

As to a populace with guns, that's a very different matter. It's not a case of “they have them so we should have them”. The police have a job that requires them to have an option of lethal force to be used only in special circumstances. How does that apply to the general public? Generally police are subject to rules about when they can withdraw their guns from their holsters in public, reports have to be written etc… If you were allowed to carry a gun you wouldn't have that trouble.

“Anti gun people” aren't really “anti guns” in general, they're opposed to an armed populace: people who have no business wielding deadly force, who are not subject to any controls or rules about when they're allowed to draw their weapons etc.

And this:
MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME.
That's nonsense. Crime happens regardless, we all know that. That's not the problem with guns. The real issue with guns is that they're extremely successful tools for killing people. There is no tool better- You can't run from a bullet, you can't hide behind a wall or a door from a bullet, you can't protect yourself with your hand or a shield, and once you are killed with a bullet the shooter can kill another 6 or 12 or more in the space of a few seconds, then escape to do it again, and again. Guns are good that way.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
da_kasha at 8:21AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(offline)
posts: 187
joined: 5-26-2009

Like ozoneocean said. Guns give people the power to easily kill and injure others and when people are anti-gun it's an easier way of saying they're unhappy that people can wield that power. What that power is used for depends on the person wielding it. You know, the whole “great power comes with great responsibility” thing.

Police don't often need guns on average imo but when going against, say a murderer, the murderer won't fear them if the police aren't threatening.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:09PM
Hawk at 9:03AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
1. Police aren't meant to be “equal” to us. They're meant to be superior so that we obey them.

2. I've NEVER seen a police officer in a tank or APC. What country are you talking about, Kyupol?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
ozoneocean at 9:06AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,055
joined: 1-2-2004
Hawk
2. I've NEVER seen a police officer in a tank or APC. What country are you talking about, Kyupol?
I think he's speaking generally. There are police who have special vehicles, even in the U.S. but those are obviously only used in special circumstances.
-A simple Google search will show you examples of that. Specifically this as an example.

Kyupol is being a bit silly in implying that those sorts of things would be used all the time.

————–
A quick internet search on the subject turns up many people expressing the same sorts of views as Kyupol. I doubt his sincerity and commitment to this idea. I seriously believe he's just regurgitating a particular species of generalised typical beliefs that are held by all “non-conformist” anti-globalisation, anti-NWO, libitarian types. There's no real originality, considered thought, or logic put into these views, they're more like an ideology that all those people preach simply because they feel left out of society and railing against those things is part of their way of showing solidarity with each other.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Product Placement at 10:46AM, Aug. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I don't like the idea of guns being easily available to the public. However the police is not part of the public. If guns are to be entirely abolished, an exception should be made to the law enforcement to tackle individuals who manage to somehow get their hands on such weaponry. Naturally in a world where guns are not commonplace, the police will not require such extreme counters like armored vehicles and automated weaponry.

Where I live, most police officers don't carry side arms. In fact, the really few officers that do, belong to the elite force called the Viking squad (I'm not kidding with the name). They're trained with shot guns and other heavy weaponry and are equipped with bullet proof armor and face covering helmets (their identity is considered a state secret in order to protect them and their family). They're only called out in special scenarios when a major drug den is discovered that's believed to be protected with armed men or if a violent person with a gun is discovered. This only happens once or twice a year at most so whenever they're called out it becomes a news worthy event.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
Hawk at 2:15PM, Aug. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Well, I don't consider them SWAT team to be mere police officers… more like some half-step up toward the military. But I guess if that's what the issue is really about then it makes sense.

I'm fine with the SWAT teams being well-armed and militant. You don't see these people patrolling the streets. They come out in the times when they're needed (armed standoffs, hostage situations) and I think those situations warrant the kind of firepower they carry. And why should I worry? Only armed criminals should, and if they're carrying guns they should expect to be met with firepower.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
isukun at 10:41PM, Aug. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
As has been said, police enforce the rules, they aren't out equals and they shouldn't be. There needs to be someone who is not only responsible to uphold the law, but accountable when they go to far. Police are trained and are expected to understand their boundaries as well as the laws they enforce. That doesn't mean they are leaders, though. There is a difference between enforcing the law and making it. Police are still people, though. As with any people, they will make mistakes and you will get some bad apples in with the bunch.

That doesn't mean they are abusing power or oppressive, however. In a country like America, would you really want to leave law enforcement up to the public? Would you rather go back to the days of lynch mobs? No trials, not jury, just drag them out of their houses and shoot them. Yeah, that's less oppressive.

Most people who are for tighter gun control would argue that as there are less guns on the street, the police don't NEED to be as well armed. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the training and the option, however. Even if violent crime drops considerably, you will still have those rare cases where they are going to need that training and the firepower, and I'd much rather see them able to respond in such a case.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
qqq at 12:27AM, Aug. 24, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
Guns aren't the true reason for the disproportionate amounts of Crime in the US, that's poverty, or at least a large difference in wealth. If you show people what wealth they can have, but don't give it to them, they'll go out and take it. Ghetto's in the US are practically a third world country.

Also, it's the whole shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality. But guns should be banned, we're talking about a country that let's you own a gun before you can drink a bitter, never lets you smoke pot, and thought that reading the word ‘terror’ on a comic strip in the 1970's was so bad for children that it was disallowed by the authority in the titles of any strip…
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
bravo1102 at 1:30PM, Aug. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,360
joined: 1-21-2008
An armed constabulary is a necessary evil when more people live in less space. The police should outgun their prospective enemies. An armored vehicle gives them a powerful weapon against large mobs, law breakers in fortified positions or to stop vehicles and just as a tool of intimidation.

All the police armored vehicles shown are Armored Personnel Carriers, mainly an armored box to protect police personnel or to provide cover for law enforcement behind something a law breaker can't easily destroy. That Ford Crown Victoria isn't that invincibile and most foreign police cars are laughable. To put bullet proof armor on a chassis it ends up what the civilian type calls a tank.

An M113 ain't nowhere near a tank.



which if you've ever been in Charleston you wouldn't blame them for having. It doesn't have the usual military armament or anywhere near it.

You're just lucky it isn't this version:



or even this:



(now how did I find specifically Australian and Filipino M113 variants?)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
imshard at 3:23PM, Aug. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Well Kyupol, I have no idea why you think anti-gun advocates like an armed police force. If anything its a limited number of politicians that believe in asymmetric distribution of power, not necessarily that guns should be banned just that the people shouldn't have guns and the civil authority should. That is a totally different animal from the simple anti-gun advocate, nobody takes that seriously anyway. The vast majority of people follow something like a median view, with most ant-gun advocates simply believing that the country would be safer if less lethal weapons were floating around.

Leave the crazy “they wanna take our guns and turns us into sheeple” conspiracy arguments at home, nobody will take them seriously. Even worse it hurts the POV of pro-gun advocates when you mention that type of lunacy and legitimizes the unfair stereotype of the gun-nut with the tin-foil hat.

I come from the understanding that dead is dead and there is no such thing as a safe weapon. If it kills then it kills, from guns to bombs to chainsaws you'll still be dead. Guns are a very visible way target for safety campaigns but no amount of legislation is going to make people not want to kill each other one way or the other. After that A criminal WILL have a gun if he wants to get one, and most of the guns criminals have have been re-used several times and resold to other criminals. If I want to buy a shotgun or hand revolver to (literally) have a fighting chance of surviving a home invasion (which I have in fact had to do), then I should be able to instead of being at the mercy of any thug willing to violate gun ownership law right before he breaks and enters.

Police escalation though does concern me. I don't like the use of extreme force as by its very definition it is unnecessary. Honestly riot gear and bean bag guns I can understand, but .50 cal machine guns, nerve gas, and mobile crowd barriers mounted to the front of an APC is expensive overkill for most places. Let the state keep a militia of such things for special occasions kept near areas that might need it. Giving the Sheriff's office AR-16s and frag grenades though is stupid, wasteful, and furthermore unnecessary.

EDIT: In fact lemme say that gun control and police armaments should be two separate discussions.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
ozoneocean at 12:59AM, Aug. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,055
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
An M113 ain't nowhere near a tank.
Well, if you take the original meaning of tank, then that's really what it is. :)
I remember looking at the silly wiki entry for “tank” a long time ago and some moron had written that the first “Tanks” weren't really tanks, they were just APCs. lol!
The problem there being that the only reason we use the word “tank” at ALL for any AFV is because that's what the British called their “Tanks”. Those are the only real “tanks”.
The meanings of words change of course, but it's pretty silly to try and do it retrospectively like that. Imbecilic actually.

Regardless. Those vehicles are classed as armoured personnel carriers, or light armoured vehicles, or armoured fighting vehicles or whatever the current parlance and jargon terms them these days.
No police force that I know of in Australia uses them.

————————————————–
imshard
I come from the understanding that dead is dead and there is no such thing as a safe weapon. If it kills then it kills, from guns to bombs to chainsaws you'll still be dead.
If you think that way about guns, perhaps we should arm the military with chainsaws instead? Afteral, weapons are all the same, no difference there. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
bravo1102 at 6:02AM, Aug. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,360
joined: 1-21-2008
Light armored vehicles have been used by Police forces since armored cars were invented. Any nation that has a history of mob violence and riots has kept them in their inventory. The Weimar republic used them as did the liberal government in Austria. The USA had them sent from the National Guard to quell riots and break strikes. Most urban police departments had specialized armored trucks akin to those used to carry money in the 1920s and 30s. It's easier for the police to have their own than to call in the army like for the Bonus Army in 1932.

Australia doesn't have a history of massive mob violence and the army is close at hand. If a riot akin to Watts or Rodney King broke out you'd see the armored Police Land Rovers come out and not a few M113s. An armored Land Rover or Shorland Security Vehicle can do all the things an M113 can do except an M113 in the USA is cheaper to get second hand from the Army. The Commando and Guardian Armored cars the military had left over from Vietnam made their way into Police departments as did the horrid M114 scout vehicle. Australia's Police armored vehicles just look like Land Rovers. But they can still do all the things an M113 can do and it takes a little homework to know the difference. It's a battle taxi. It's an armored box to carry cops into the fray whether on tracks or on wheels.

A tank has always been a large heavy vehicle, heavily armed used to destroy the enemy and later on other tanks. An M113 is nearer to an armored car in weapons carried the nomenclature of which already existed when the first tank (landship) was developed. It is only a PC because it carries guys in the back.

One of first British tanks had HMLS (His majesty's land ship) on the front and was painted Royal Navy grey. An armored car usually does not have a heavy gun and when it does it goes up the notch to a tank. (like the Stryker Armored Gun System and the Canadian Cougar) It's only still called an armored car because it has wheels rather than tracks but for all intents and purposes it a tank. That big gun in the big turret makes it a tank. If it carries troops it's a personnel carrier. That armored Land rover is still an armored car.

By the way, the nomenclature goes back to J.F.C Fuller right after World War One and even to H.G. Wells at the turn of the 20th century. It's a specialized field and it's pain in the butt to have to drag out all the sources and educate people who think anything without windows and on tracks is a tank and somehow anything with windows and on wheels is okay. It's the big-ass gun in the big-ass turret that makes a tank.

By the way none of the Police armored vehicles in the google search had a .50 caliber machine gun. The Charleston PD M113 has a grenade launcher as used to shoot Tear gas. (I've seen it in person. Put an Armored vehicle anywhere near an AFV enthusist, he smells it out and it takes a supreme act of will not to climb all over it.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
isukun at 8:13AM, Aug. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
After that A criminal WILL have a gun if he wants to get one, and most of the guns criminals have have been re-used several times and resold to other criminals.

I've always hated this argument, it is so misinformed. The black market exists in this country because there is a viable SOURCE of weapons here. Gun-runners have a tendency to be shipping guns OUT of the US, not into it. Those guns which have been re-used and re-sold several times are for the most part stolen or bought from law-abiding gun owning US citizens. If there were no source of these weapons, you wouldn't have every crack addicted psycho in the streets carrying a gun. Without that viable source, black market prices would be too high for your average blue collar criminal. Besides which, most blue collar criminals don't have access to that black market, anyway, they tend to get their hands on guns either because they already owned one legally, or they stole one from a legal owner. The criminals who you would need to protect your family from work independently and are not part of some larger criminal underground.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Orin J Master at 3:18PM, Aug. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
isukun
-for the most part stolen or bought from law-abiding gun owning US citizens.

neg, most are “stolen” from people that didn't exist with the help of gun stores trying to stay in the black fudging a few numbers to make some profit. Law-abiding US citizens would be picked up as an accessory to criminal acts if the sold them and have to keep their guns in a safe.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
imshard at 5:58PM, Aug. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
isukun
After that A criminal WILL have a gun if he wants to get one, and most of the guns criminals have have been re-used several times and resold to other criminals.

I've always hated this argument, it is so misinformed. The black market exists in this country because there is a viable SOURCE of weapons here. Gun-runners have a tendency to be shipping guns OUT of the US, not into it. Those guns which have been re-used and re-sold several times are for the most part stolen or bought from law-abiding gun owning US citizens. If there were no source of these weapons, you wouldn't have every crack addicted psycho in the streets carrying a gun. Without that viable source, black market prices would be too high for your average blue collar criminal. Besides which, most blue collar criminals don't have access to that black market, anyway, they tend to get their hands on guns either because they already owned one legally, or they stole one from a legal owner. The criminals who you would need to protect your family from work independently and are not part of some larger criminal underground.

I've always hated this argument, it is so misinformed. There isn't always a “black market” hidden away in some alleyway or basement. Most illegal guns trades pass between individuals and rarely consist of more than a 9mm with a 7 round clip. Otherwise known as throw-away guns. Often the guns are bought through a proxy commonly referred to as a straw-man transaction where a person without a criminal record is recruited (willing or otherwise) to purchase the weapons. If they weren't made here then I guarantee they'd be smuggled in instead just like every other country with gun bans. Illegal guns in the US are becoming rare. Not every crack head has them anymore. The existing guns laws are now better enforced with less guns making it into the wrong hands.

US gun deaths are down to roughly 10,000 a year with about 4 homicides 6 suicides and under .5 fatal accidents per 100,000 population. This compares to 15,000 murders, where only half were gun related. Since 1996 when the majority of current gun laws were enacted the percent of violent crimes involving guns has stayed under 10%. To put that in perspective, remember the USA also saw 40,000 automobile deaths, and 20,000 flu related deaths.

Ozone
If you think that way about guns, perhaps we should arm the military with chainsaws instead? Afteral, weapons are all the same, no difference there.

Don't be daft we're talking about civilian life. If the military and its opposition were subject to the same gun laws as the civilian population I'd expect plenty of bladed weapons and grenades would crop up to complement the deer rifles and handguns when they couldn't punch through the kevlar. Yes Guns kill very well, but they also increase YOUR survivability if you're holding one too.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
isukun at 8:33PM, Aug. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
If they weren't made here then I guarantee they'd be smuggled in instead just like every other country with gun bans.

Maybe a small portion, but not so many and not going to the right class of criminal that people would need to concern themselves about their personal safety. I fail to see how anything in your post negates ANYTHING I said in my previous post.

neg, most are “stolen” from people that didn't exist with the help of gun stores trying to stay in the black fudging a few numbers to make some profit. Law-abiding US citizens would be picked up as an accessory to criminal acts if the sold them and have to keep their guns in a safe.

Yet another case where the problem can be prevented by not allowing the sale of those firearms to begin with. Law-abiding citizens don't have to keep their guns in a safe, at least not in this country, and whether you would be an accessory or not is dependent on the state laws regarding gun ownership and how the gun is sold.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
PIT_FACE at 9:01AM, Aug. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,591
joined: 4-21-2007
bravo1102
An armed constabulary is a necessary evil when more people live in less space. The police should outgun their prospective enemies. An armored vehicle gives them a powerful weapon against large mobs, law breakers in fortified positions or to stop vehicles and just as a tool of intimidation.

All the police armored vehicles shown are Armored Personnel Carriers, mainly an armored box to protect police personnel or to provide cover for law enforcement behind something a law breaker can't easily destroy. That Ford Crown Victoria isn't that invincibile and most foreign police cars are laughable. To put bullet proof armor on a chassis it ends up what the civilian type calls a tank.

An M113 ain't nowhere near a tank.



which if you've ever been in Charleston you wouldn't blame them for having. It doesn't have the usual military armament or anywhere near it.

You're just lucky it isn't this version:



or even this:



(now how did I find specifically Australian and Filipino M113 variants?)


i'd like one of those for christmas,ma.

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:45PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved