[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:30 am

To be honest, I'd actually be more worried about someone like npc310 having a gun than any number of drug dealers. Drug dealers are more likely to use their guns for intimidation, and only sparingly for actual crime, since it drives up their sentence if caught. Npc310 sounds like he'd be shooting at every damned strange noise in the night.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:35 am

K wrote:You know, I've been in my house while either someone was trying to break in or someone was trying to break in to the neighbors.

I foiled both attempted robberies by opening a window and saying "Hi, what's up?"

I've also had four attempted muggings, one of which ended with the guy shooting me in the foot.

I think NPC310 is just a big fucking pussy. Having someone break into your house while you are away is just an annoyance, not something that should traumatize you.

...Okay, K, you won the Internet for foiling the robberies like that.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:44 am

Hey, remember that K got shot in the foot by mugger. K is a badass mutherfucker.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:45 am

If I tell an anecdote about how great the police have been, does it cancel out someone else's bad experience so we can get back to talking about statistical probabilities rather than fear from a personal experience?

Because I totally was home when someone broke into my house and the police responded within two and a half minutes. They also did extra patrols around my house for the next week to make sure there were no further break-ins.

Furthermore, there were some things stolen that - when found - were irreparably damaged. And the insurance company paid for all of it. No lawyers needed.

I was also with my mom in a grocery store when she was mugged by another lady. My mom fought her off with some hair yanking and a jar of spaghetti sauce.

So obviously, I'm right when I say we don't need guns because we have police, awesome insurance companies, and Ragu.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:51 am

Yeah, I've never had an issue with police. When I was living in apartments years ago, I called the non-emergency number like 3 times (threats from another tenant, car robbery in progress next complex over, something else, can't remember). The police responded within ten minutes each time. Which is admirably quick for things where people weren't immediately in danger.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:01 am

npc310 wrote: There was a shootout in a dollar store. Doesn't say anything about the guy defending his family.

Talk about moving goalposts. It's a self-defense shooting. It killed someone nearby in a crossfire. You are shooting at burglars in your house. Do you know who's nearby? Your family. That's... basically a perfect example of the bad shit that happens when you try to engage in firefights untrained and unprepared.

npc310 wrote: Nobody was shot, though I do feel sorry for the light fixture, fiberglass shower stall, and the jacket.

Wait, so a bullet passes within a few feet of hitting, injuring, and possibly killing someone, and your response is "well, it didn't actually hit them, it only nearly hit him... therefore it's totally safe." The fact that a bullet passes through someone's house is not evidence to you that bullets could pass through someone who is in that house's face?

Anyway, here are some numbers:
US households: 114 million.
US households with firearms: The NRA claims about half that, which would be 57 million. It's closer to a third by most studies. 38-57 million.
Firearms accidents per year (2000): 24,400 (23,200 non-fatal)
Violent burglaries per year committed by strangers: 74,600

So, there are 24,400 firearm accidents spread among 38 million households, or 43-64 per 100,000 households.

And there are 74,000 violent burglaries committed by strangers (i.e. not ex-lovers or family) spread among 114 million households, or 65 per 100,000.

That honestly worked out pretty well. In order for firearms ownership to be worth the accidents it causes, self-defense against violent burglaries by strangers needs to be successful somewhere between 66% (if you believe the NRA) and 98% (if you believe anyone else) of the time. Anything less, and gun ownership only adds firearms accidents on tops of successful and violent burglaries.

Numbers lifted from the census, the department of justice, and wikipedia's page on gun violence.

Edit: Yes, that's all very handwavy and there are lots of hidden assumptions, but the point is: it's not far from the ballpark to say that guns are just about as dangerous as a random burglary.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:02 am

Yeah. Sorry npc, but you think you're Neo. You're actually Keanu Reeves.

And Maj: totally. I never leave home without Ragu. Er, I mean, your anecdotes cancel his out (and are more representative of what actually happens most of the time).

Also, when I was delivering pamphlets, there was just a report of a prowler in the vague area I was in (I don't think it was me, apparently the call was from somewhere I had not yet been) on one day. I came across four patrol cars and one unmarked car, all wanting to know what I was doing, see my ID and ask if I'd seen anyone suspicious. So unless they were really fucking bored, they took "there might be a burglar or something" pretty seriously.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:41 am

npc310 wrote: Afterward, my neighbor told me that he didn't think anyone was home, but he did not tell me whether or not he told the 911 operator. Let's assume he told them what he told me. Unsure of whether or not there were women and children in danger, the cops took over 90 minutes to respond. Yeah, I feel safe.

Let's assume that he told the 911 operator that he didn't think anyone was home, because that clearly was his state of mind and cops get involved much more quickly when there are people in danger versus not. I'd tell your neighbor next time to tell them that they think someone else might be in the house.

I have had someone attempt breaking into my house while I was there. I hollered something to the effect "Hey dumbass, there are people here" (an inaccessible window was open a smidge). To my surprise he still came around tried the back door, but it was locked. He may not have heard me when I called him a dumbass, but I suspect when I mentioned 911 afterward that registered. He hustled back to his truck and sped outta my driveway before I could get his license plate.

Generally, robbers absolutely do not want to encounter *anyone* when they break into a place. That's why most robberies are during the day, not at night- hoping to catch the house empty whilst residents are at work/school.

If people are breaking into a home at night, usually they are very stupid kids who do not understand the danger they are in. At my in-laws neighborhood they used to leave doors unlocked and once someone did come into the house at night at stole a bunch of crappy DVDs. Stupid kids. I once left my car unlocked at the driveway there overnight and the idiots stole an ipod charger (cost <$5 to replace and I didn't like the old one anyway) and a pack of gum. Not exactly a threat. Hell, barely a nuisance in my case.

My rule for when I parked my car at work downtown back in the day was that I always left no valuables, and in fact left a door unlocked because I'd rather someone rooted around in there looking for shit than actually break a window. Tis similar to my philosophy that I don't want a gun because it isn't cost effective, it is more dangerous than not having one, and it isn't even a fucking deterrent.

I think guns are cool, but there is no logical reason for me to own one. Maybe when my kids are older and if they express an interest in learning to hunt.

As for police response anecdotes, I have had my alarm system triggered by cats before when I was out of town (they aren't big enough to set off the motion sensor, but when they knock over a card table that'll do it). Cops arrived in under 20 min despite us being out of town. I have also reported an abandoned car that was dumped by my yard- I mostly wanted to make sure it wasn't stolen and missing since along my yard was a weird place to abandon a car. Cop came by in a couple hours since I expressed there was no rush, and I had a friendly chat and he was very reasonable.

I know that everyone's time is wasted on npc310, since he has already demonstrated a willingness to ignore facts and logic in other threads as well. But there are plenty more people who share the same misconceptions. It is my hope that they aren't all as willfully ignorant as he should they stumble upon this discussion.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:29 am

Here's some anecdotes for y'all.

People with guns?

Old guy shoots robbers

14 year old defends family

Cops?

Police shoot victim of break-in, after he called them

Police shoot a DIFFERENT victim, after he called 911; only this time they lie about it and try to cover it up

Police shoot mentally ill man, after relative tells them specifically that he is holding a fake gun

Does this mean we should abolish the police? No. No more than we should ban guns. What we should do is deal with people who misuse firearms, whether or not they wear a badge.

When we start holding cops accountable for bad shootings, I'll consider your point of view. Until then, fuck off.

EDIT: also, why the fuck is a gun control thread in "non political" discussion?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:19 am

Last thing to npc310:
I understand the "holy shit, it took the police almost two hours to get to my place when it was being burgled!" response, it's honestly pretty surprising.

You might, however, want to google you area, and that day, and see what else was going on. If some nutjob had an automatic rifle and was shooting random people in the mall, I think the fact that the police got to your place at all is rather astonishing. Just a bit of perspective.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:23 am

PoliteNewb wrote:Does this mean we should abolish the police? No. No more than we should ban guns.

Cops not having handguns is a page or two back. It's actually incredibly reasonable and well tested. The reasons are pretty similar to the arguments for why civilians attempting self-defense with a loaded firearm is a fairly shitty idea as a crime countermeasure.

But it does amuse me that your anecdotal evidence that civilians won't accidentally murder people they shouldn't is complemented with anecdotal evidence that people with formal firearm training accidentally murder people they shouldn't all the time. Why, if you took that evidence naively at its face it'd make it look like an armed, trained police force is actually more dangerous than an armed, untrained civilian populace. Which is a pretty damn ridiculous assertion. Police do fail and shoot people they shouldn't. But at the same time, they undergo firearm usage training intended to minimize that. There is zero such requirement for civilians owning a gun. Any problem you have with police misuse of force will always be inherently worse in the civilian populace and that much harder to control.

P.S., all three of your anecdotes involve police officers firing on people they thought were armed. The last two involve a breakdown in communication, which has nothing to do with irresponsible use of a firearm. The first involves a victim chasing a perpetrator into the street with a gun and getting shot because he is chasing someone into the street with a gun. They are all tragic, and the situation around the second is incredibly scummy on top of that. But the decision to fire is only really worth questioning in the second (back turned, on the phone; plus the six shots, two while downed tells me that police officer had wholly intended to shoot and murder the criminal).

PoliteNewb wrote:When we start holding cops accountable for bad shootings, I'll consider your point of view. Until then, fuck off.

I do want to point out that that's a total nonsequitur. And you know what? Until you admit that cherry kool-aid is the best thing ever we have nothing more to discuss.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:25 am

PoliteNewb wrote:EDIT: also, why the fuck is a gun control thread in "non political" discussion?

Because it evolved out of "holy fuck, some fucknut shot up a theater" and fbmf hasn't seen a reason to move it (though it totally should get moved to it's own thread with a [politics] tag.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:26 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:EDIT: also, why the fuck is a gun control thread in "non political" discussion?
Because it evolved out of "holy fuck, some fucknut shot up a theater" and fbmf hasn't seen a reason to move it (though it totally should get moved to it's own thread with a [politics] tag.

Don't we already have that exact thread?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:45 am

we have like three threads with [POLITICS] in the title right now... really this should split into "[POLITICS] Gun Control" or something.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:00 pm

You do know that we do hold police accountable for bad shootings. Police go to jail for such shit. When it's actually a bad shooting. But there is also a saying in law enforcement:
Rather be Judged by 12, than Carried by 6.

Police are taught to use force as sparingly as possible, but if there is ever a doubt, they're supposed to choose living another day, over hemming and hawing about wether or not the guy really is dangerous.

Also, just because you tell me that your best friend is waiving a fake gun, that looks really fucking real to me. Why the fuck should I believe you? Like I've never been lied to about such crap in the past.

The proper response to police yelling freeze, is to put your hands way up, and drop anything you might be carrying. Not, to reach into your jacket to show your wallet, like some fucking idiot.

Adrenaline makes you have worse judgement. I would like to see the police armed, mostly with less lethal. But given how easy it is to get a gun as a civilian. That seems like a stupid move. Dumb Ass drunk civilians shoot cops all the time, because they didn't want to get pulled over.

As a reminder:
For 2011
Total Line of Duty Deaths: 173
9/11 related illness: 6
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 5
Automobile accident: 35
Drowned: 4
Duty related illness: 7
Explosion: 1
Gunfire: 67
Gunfire (Accidental): 5
Heart attack: 11
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 5
Stabbed: 2
Struck by vehicle: 4
Training accident: 1
Vehicle pursuit: 4
Vehicular assault: 12
Weather/Natural disaster: 1

By Month
January: 18
February: 14
March: 24
April: 11
May: 16
June: 16
July: 16
August: 15
September: 10
October: 7
November: 7
December: 19

By State
Alabama: 3
Arizona: 2
Arkansas: 1
California: 10
Colorado: 2
Delaware: 1
Florida: 12
Georgia: 10
Hawaii: 1
Illinois: 2
Indiana: 2
Iowa: 2
Kansas: 1
Kentucky: 1
Louisiana: 3
Maine: 1
Maryland: 2
Massachusetts: 1
Michigan: 5
Minnesota: 2
Mississippi: 2
Missouri: 6
Montana: 1
New Jersey: 5
New York: 17
North Carolina: 7
North Dakota: 2
Ohio: 6
Oklahoma: 2
Oregon: 3
Pennsylvania: 4
Puerto Rico: 4
South Carolina: 4
South Dakota: 3
Tennessee: 5
Texas: 13
Tribal Police: 2
U.S. Government: 13
Virginia: 6
Washington: 2
Wisconsin: 1
Wyoming: 1

By Gender
Male: 162
Female: 11

Statistics
Average age: 41
Average tour of duty: 13 years, 2 months

Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2011#ixzz21dtPs43a

it's harder to track how many people are killed during police action every year. But it's around 200.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:48 pm

erik wrote:Rifles are kind of handy for reducing deer population. I suppose that might be one rational reason to keep em around.

Or just do what my girlfriend did while growing up and food was low, hunt deer with a bow.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:00 pm

sabs wrote:You do know that we do hold police accountable for bad shootings.

Not in Albuquerque (where I currently live, but not for much longer, thankfully) ABQ cops shoot more people than NYPD cops do, to the point that after repeated investigations resultted in a shrug and sheepish grin, a federal investigation had to be called, and essentially ended in the same shrug.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/14 ... e-20120415

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/articl ... 515557.php

Now I'm pretty safe from the cops (because when you get right down to it, I'm not brown), but highlights of the copkillings have included:

A mentally ill hispanic guy in his late teens/early twenties. Police justification? He had a fork.

More recently, some guy stole a school bus, and barrelled down I-40 with it. The bus was empty, and the cops shut down the fucking interstate (for about 6 hours) to stop it, and when they finally did, he refused to get out of the bus. Instead of talking, tossing tear gas into the bus or anything else, one of the deputies just opened up on the bus, shooting the guy three times.

Anyway, the casual gun use in the States bugs me, and I grew up with guns in the house, and in a military family (and some of my earliest memories involve climbing around in a tank at the local Army post). Even my idiot brother didn't mess with the gun cabinet, though he got into everything else, though I'm not certain if he was as aware as I was that the key to the gun cabinet was in fact on top of it. And I've been hunting on numerous occassions, and lived in bumfuck rural communities where the first day of hunting season means schools are closed because 2/3rds of the students and teachers wouldn't show up anyway.

But the gun craze is literal insanity. It doesn't make anyone safer, and while I can almost give shotguns and hunting rifles a pass as a practical tool in rural areas, anything else is utterly ridiculous. Some people I know threw a friend of mine a birthday party that involved whiskey tasting and skeet shooting. This did not seem like a wise decision to me, and frankly I was very surprised that no injuries occured.

When you get down to it, all carrying a gun does is increase the likelihood of serious injury or death. Pulling a gun escalates any situation- it either triggers panic mode, which increases the odds of stupid decision, or it triggers 'my dick is bigger than yours' adrenaline mode. Neither helps.

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:06 pm

Yeah, npc310's total failure to respond to DSMatticus puts him on the ignore list.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:51 pm

DSM wrote:But it does amuse me that your anecdotal evidence that civilians won't accidentally murder people they shouldn't is complemented with anecdotal evidence that people with formal firearm training accidentally murder people they shouldn't all the time. Why, if you took that evidence naively at its face it'd make it look like an armed, trained police force is actually more dangerous than an armed, untrained civilian populace. Which is a pretty damn ridiculous assertion. Police do fail and shoot people they shouldn't. But at the same time, they undergo firearm usage training intended to minimize that. There is zero such requirement for civilians owning a gun. Any problem you have with police misuse of force will always be inherently worse in the civilian populace and that much harder to control.

This paragraph is complete bullshit, and I would like you to provide some evidence of it...any of it.

Training has almost nothing to do with it. It has to do, like most things, with incentives. Police are incentivized to shoot people much more highly than non-police...partly because of training, but primarily because the consequences are vastly different.

Police use of force is inherently different than civilian use of force, because unlike civilians, police shootings are considered justified unless proven otherwise. Most cop shootings never even make it to a courtroom; they are reviewed (by other cops) and determined to be "righteous" or not. Courts or civilians don't normally have access to those processes, or records. Most departments don't even keep statistics on how many people are shot by police, much less release them.

When you combine this with the way police departments have been militarized over the past few decades and the way cops are now trained (to be extremely violent and aggressive, in the name of "officer safety")...yes, I do believe armed cops are more of a threat to the average person than the average armed citizen.

Everything I have said discounts armed CRIMINALS, who I do not feel should have guns; I have no argument with that. Only with people who have committed no crimes whatsoever, aside from owning a gun (which I don't feel should be a crime).

Here's some food for thought:

In 2008, 10 times more civilians were killed by cops than cops killed by perps.

DSM wrote:The first involves a victim chasing a perpetrator into the street with a gun and getting shot because he is chasing someone into the street with a gun.

Hold on, I wish to get this straight: you are seriously defending the police shooting this man, simply because they saw him and he had a gun in his hand? Anyone who holds a gun around a cop is a fair target, is that right?

sabs wrote:You do know that we do hold police accountable for bad shootings. Police go to jail for such shit. When it's actually a bad shooting.

I do not believe this is true; the rate at which cops are prosecuted for shooting people, even unarmed people, is incredibly low. The problem is that how police (who typically review police use of force, before it ever has a chance to reach a courtroom) define a "righteous shoot" is incredibly broad, and can include shooting unarmed people on the flimsiest of pretexts. Basically, cops can get away with shooting someone by accident, which civilians can never ever do (that's manslaughter), just because they're cops.

Even if not cleared by internal review, many prosecutors are extremely reluctant to charge police, and police departments seldom discipline officers for bad use of force. Las Vegas hasn't fired or prosecuted a police officer for shooting someone in 20 years.

sabs wrote:But there is also a saying in law enforcement:
Rather be Judged by 12, than Carried by 6.

Police are taught to use force as sparingly as possible, but if there is ever a doubt, they're supposed to choose living another day, over hemming and hawing about wether or not the guy really is dangerous.

And you consider this okay? That's it's all right for cops to place their safety above that of innocent people? It's better for them to shoot an unarmed person to death, rather than take a chance that they themselves might be killed? Because that is fucked up.

I believe there are good cops. But I believe that police culture is incredibly fucked up, and getting moreso, and this hinders what police should actually be doing.

I believe America has a violence problem, but trying to solve it through gun control is pointless. Don't trust me?Ask the CDC.

It's like trying to solve the drug problem through the War on Drugs. Focusing on the object (drugs or guns) is a distraction from the real problem (violence and addiction), and honestly, makes things worse.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:01 pm

virgil wrote:
erik wrote:Rifles are kind of handy for reducing deer population. I suppose that might be one rational reason to keep em around.
Or just do what my girlfriend did while growing up and food was low, hunt deer with a bow.

Your girlfriend?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:18 pm

Voss wrote:
sabs wrote:You do know that we do hold police accountable for bad shootings.
Not in Albuquerque (where I currently live, but not for much longer, thankfully) ABQ cops shoot more people than NYPD cops do, to the point that after repeated investigations resultted in a shrug and sheepish grin, a federal investigation had to be called, and essentially ended in the same shrug.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/14 ... e-20120415

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/articl ... 515557.php

Now I'm pretty safe from the cops (because when you get right down to it, I'm not brown), but highlights of the copkillings have included:

A mentally ill hispanic guy in his late teens/early twenties. Police justification? He had a fork.

More recently, some guy stole a school bus, and barrelled down I-40 with it. The bus was empty, and the cops shut down the fucking interstate (for about 6 hours) to stop it, and when they finally did, he refused to get out of the bus. Instead of talking, tossing tear gas into the bus or anything else, one of the deputies just opened up on the bus, shooting the guy three times.

Well... Television has led me to believe that ABQ is just lousy with trigger happy drug dealers, who'll even go so far as to strap a grenade to a tortoise, and put some guy's head on the shell, so... maybe the cops down there watch Breaking Bad too and have a really poor grasp on the difference between fiction and non-fiction?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:09 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:In 2008, 10 times more civilians were killed by cops than cops killed by perps.

I want to point out that that statistic measures fucking nothing and you should be ashamed for toting it around like its scare factor makes a persuasive argument. That is some "here's a scary number. What's it mean? loldunno" bullshit. It doesn't say anything about whether cops with guns or civilians with guns are more dangerous. It doesn't even say what you want it to ("police use of deadly force is totally overdone relative to risk"), because all we can actually conclude from that is that when deadly force is brought to bear, untrained criminals are less successful against trained, armed, and vest-wearing police than those same trained, armed, and vest-wearing police are against untrained, unarmed, and not at all vest-wearing civilians. This is exactly what an apples and oranges comparison looks like, and it is bad.

A statistic you would actually use to make your point is the (number of firefights police are killed in) + (number of firefights police have had to legitimately protect themself in and would have otherwise died) vs (number of civilians killed by police deadly force). Since the second of those is going to be difficult to even approximate, your approach to this problem blows and can get you know where, and your statistic doesn't even get us halfway to your conclusion.

Nevertheless, I'm going to remind you: people in this thread have already demonstrated that police don't need firearms at all! That is a tried and true strategy. And that is my position. The problem I have with you and your bullshit is that 1) your arguments suck and are wrongbad, and 2) police brutality has fuck-all to do with civilian irresponsibility! You are deliberately here spewing "NO, I HATE THE POLICE AND WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT THEM" as though it has any bearing whatsoever on whether civilians are dangerous with firearms or not. That is some misdirectional bullshit. If you want to talk about one problem and then the other, what the fuck ever. But they aren't actually related, so shove it.

PoliteNewb wrote: Hold on, I wish to get this straight: you are seriously defending the police shooting this man, simply because they saw him and he had a gun in his hand? Anyone who holds a gun around a cop is a fair target, is that right?

I'm going to explain the situation to you as the police officer saw it (at least, according to the eye witness neighbor):
Man #1 runs out of the apartment. He is unarmed and fleeing. The police officer sees this.
Man #2 runs out of the apartment, pursuing man #1. He holds a handgun in his hand. The police officer sees this.
The police officer raises his gun and fires at the armed man.

Now, you can bitch about how man #2 turned out to be the victim, but what the fuck ever. That's a tragedy. But if the police officer had been right, and man #2 had been the criminal and put a couple bullets in a fleeing Thomas's back, that would be exactly as much of a tragedy, and there'd be some article for people to bitch about how "innocent civilian murdered while police officer does nothing."

If you want to fault police for not being omniscient, you should probably just shut up.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:03 am

Chamomile wrote:
virgil wrote:
erik wrote:Rifles are kind of handy for reducing deer population. I suppose that might be one rational reason to keep em around.
Or just do what my girlfriend did while growing up and food was low, hunt deer with a bow.
Your girlfriend?

Not quite as much in competition with other people, though there was some competition with a mountain lion at one time (started stalking her and was bigger than her).

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:27 am

If police are negligent then I want them held accountable.
But if someone is acting in a way that's clearly incredibly hard to figure out, or in a way that appears dangerous and only in hindsight becomes clear. Then yes, I'm okay with them choosing not to risk dying.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:44 am

sabs wrote:If police are negligent then I want them held accountable.
But if someone is acting in a way that's clearly incredibly hard to figure out, or in a way that appears dangerous and only in hindsight becomes clear. Then yes, I'm okay with them choosing not to risk dying.

Situations where death is a possible outcome and therefore snap decisions have to be made are much more likely when everyone has a firearm. If everyone involved had a knife/baton then there is no real risk of immediate death and police have longer to decide.

And really, why does America need an armed civilian populace for "armed resistance against a tyrannical government" when other democratic countries do fine without? Are we British living in constant fear that Westminster will transform into a dictatorship overnight? Do the Australians lay awake at night in case their government suddenly marches troops into their homes?