Japanese Police issued Paintball guns

[smoking357]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Another strawman. How many cops carry an AR-15 on a sling during their entire patrol?

It's increasing, by the day.

 

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

What? When I first read someone proposing that police shouldn't have guns I thought it was some kind of joke, a parody. I tend to think that I am as pro-liberty, pro-little guy as it gets, but this is just ridiculous. If you think that carrying a gun is good safety practice for you, why is it also not for everyone else, regardless of profession?

The real problem here is that the rules, either by law or in practice, are different for police than for citizens. All of the rules should be the same; police and citizens alike carrying guns for defense, both allowed to draw under the same circumstances, both given the same penalties for misuse of their firearm*. And, AFAIK this is largely how it was in the old days.

How about we try making police just paid versions of civilians who happen to have a job description of catch the bad guys BEFORE we decide that we hate police so much that we need to send them out unarmed with giant targets painted on their backs.

I dislike unchecked authority. I don't hate the idea of authority so much that I want the government so powerless that we may as well not have a government at all. Like it or not, paid peace officers with weapons serve a role in every society. As long as the people have equal powers to them, they are no threat to liberty.



*The equal authority I refer to would be the authority to maintain the peace, ie. prevent an imminent crime, stop a crime in progress, or apprehend a fugitive or someone who has just been witnessed to commit a crime.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Another strawman. How many cops carry an AR-15 on a sling during their entire patrol?

It's increasing, by the day.

Fair enough. My point was that, although criminals with AK-47s may need to be responded to with rifles in kind, most police don't need to, and no police should, have rifles on their person on a regular basis.

And I agree, they don't need them in the car either. That's where the handguns should be.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:

How about we try making police just paid versions of civilians who happen to have a job description of catch the bad guys BEFORE we decide that we hate police so much that we need to send them out unarmed with giant targets painted on their backs.

I think things have gotten far enough that you're putting the cart before the horse.

As it stands, you won't "make the police just paid version of civilians" without changing some things, like the readiness with which police bring escalatory force into a situation.

If we hadn't already got to where we are today, I might not have a problem with police making their own decision to arm themselves or not, faced with the same liability (civil and criminal) as anybody else and thus the same judgement call to make.

As it stands, we're nowhere near there.

When armed people misbehave, you take their guns away until they've proven they can behave. This is what needs to happen to the police in America.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:

How about we try making police just paid versions of civilians who happen to have a job description of catch the bad guys

We tried that. They shifted from being "peace officers" to "law enforcement" around the end of WWII, and it's been downhill since.

BEFORE we decide that we hate police so much that we need to send them out unarmed with giant targets painted on their backs.

Unarmed, they aren't a target.

I dislike unchecked authority. I don't hate the idea of authority so much that I want the government so powerless that we may as well not have a government at all.

So this country had "no government at all" for its first hundred years? Police are a new concept, remember. Why do so many people equate citizen suppression with government? Once they control your mind and imagination, getting the rest is easy.

Like it or not, paid peace officers with weapons serve a role in every society. As long as the people have equal powers to them, they are no threat to liberty.

The role they serve is creating citizen docility and obedience. The people have such minor powers compared to the police that the citizens have become subjects.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/tase_early_tase_often_column

 

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

GWRedDragon wrote:

How about we try making police just paid versions of civilians who happen to have a job description of catch the bad guys

We tried that. They shifted from being "peace officers" to "law enforcement" around the end of WWII, and it's been downhill since.

And while they were 'peace officers' it worked just fine. We should go back to what worked.

smoking357 wrote:

BEFORE we decide that we hate police so much that we need to send them out unarmed with giant targets painted on their backs.

Unarmed, they aren't a target.

Of course they are. They are still a visible presence of the government, and people who are pissed at society in general will take it out on them.

I dislike unchecked authority. I don't hate the idea of authority so much that I want the government so powerless that we may as well not have a government at all.

So this country had "no government at all" for its first hundred years? Police are a new concept, remember. Why do so many people equate citizen suppression with government? Once they control your mind and imagination, getting the rest is easy.[/quote]
No, 'no government at all' would be not allowing government agents the same rights of self-defense that you hold so dear for yourself. I favor a system where all citizens, officers or not, have the same rights.

smoking357 wrote: users/22218.html

Like it or not, paid peace officers with weapons serve a role in every society. As long as the people have equal powers to them, they are no threat to liberty.

The role they serve is creating citizen docility and obedience. The people have such minor powers compared to the police that the citizens have become subjects.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/tase_early_tase_often_column

Once again a product of the modern era. I agree with the flaws in our CURRENT system that you have pointed out, what I do not agree is that this means that the original system of equal rights under law for all was also unworkable. Our current system of police being 'above the law' in many practical situations has to stop, but that doesn't mean we should go off the deep end in the other extreme. Doing so almost seems like you want to punish LEOs instead of setting up a fair system of government.

Officers have just as much right to self-defense as you do; no more, no less.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:

Officers have just as much right to self-defense as you do; no more, no less.

Wrong. Nobody has the right to force another to enter in a contract of employment. If a condition for employment is being unarmed, one has the right to take or not take employment. But one does not have the right to force any employer to employ you on your terms.

Plenty of jobs are defined by being unarmed. Surely strippers have the right to bear arms. But it would be impossible for them to do their job armed (well, unless that was part of the show). Either they make the choice to not exercise that right while they're working, or they're unemployable in that business.

Get it?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Another strawman. How many cops carry an AR-15 on a sling during their entire patrol?

I never said police shouldn't have access to handguns and AR-15s. I merely think they should not have weapons on their person during every traffic stop or "consensual" encounter, and should certainly not present their weapons as frequently as they do today.

Tomahawk hit the nail on the head, as usual.

No idea what your point is regarding slung up AR rifles. They are in the car and not removed unless needed.

I guess the officer on this traffic stop would not need a gun either...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jkVJxywnN8


He can run back and go get it if he really, really needs it...... :uhoh:

 

[marshaul]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Another strawman. How many cops carry an AR-15 on a sling during their entire patrol?

I never said police shouldn't have access to handguns and AR-15s. I merely think they should not have weapons on their person during every traffic stop or "consensual" encounter, and should certainly not present their weapons as frequently as they do today.

Tomahawk hit the nail on the head, as usual.

No idea what your point is regarding slung up AR rifles. They are in the car and not removed unless needed.

I guess the officer on this traffic stop would not need a gun either...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jkVJxywnN8


He can run back and go get it if he really, really needs it......   :uhoh:

I clarified my point on this page (page 3, near the top).

What that cop needed was backup, not a handgun. The criminal took his gun anyway. :quirky Not exactly the best anecdote to support your case.

Besides, whose to say the gun didn't escalate the situation? Can you prove this would have been just as bad or worse had the officer been disarmed, or armed with additional tools other than a handgun?

He ended up hitting the guy with his gun. A baton would have served him better until backup arrived. Or having backup to start with.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Why are you focusing on cops alone when far more citizens are involved in gun related dangers?

There are also more citizens than cops. By a long shot. Armed ones, too.

The rates are disproportionate. Further, most citizen-induced dangers are accidents, NDs and the like. Most of the time nobody gets hurt.

The simple fact is, as you with your experience very well know, citizens very rarely stop drivers and end up killing the unarmed occupant(s).

Armed citizens don't go looking for trouble. Cops do. This is the inherent difference between the two, and why I seek to treat them differently.

BTW, a citizen has a right to bear arms, but he doesn't have a right to require his employer allow him to be armed while on the job. The employer retains his right to make only those contracts he darn well pleases to enter into. The people, as employer of the police, can similarly set any rules they darn well please with regards to how and the extent to which officers arm themselves while on the job.

So clearly... there are more chances for people to be hurt and injured at the hands of dangerous citizens.. Thank you!! :lol:

You have seen this, right?? We was responding to a call for help.... he made a poor decision.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/INDIGAT06_20090706-142201/278327/

 

[smoking357]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I guess the officer on this traffic stop would not need a gun either...

No officer on a traffic stop needs a gun, and we should get away from traffic stops being "routine."

A driver should only be arrested in the most dire circumstances. Traffic stops are police-generated crime, and police should spend 99% of their day responding to crimes in which there is an actual victim or there is an actual complaint by a citizen against a recognized Liberty or property interest.

Further, unarmed police aren't the targets that the current quasi-military units are. Nobody's shooting at the mowing crews on the Parks Department.

 

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

No officer on a traffic stop needs a gun

Yet I'm sure you'd like to be able to have your gun during a traffic stop...

The officer attacks you, you shouldn't have to just take it and die.

You attack the officer, he shouldn't have to just take it and die.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Why are you focusing on cops alone when far more citizens are involved in gun related dangers?

There are also more citizens than cops. By a long shot. Armed ones, too.

The rates are disproportionate. Further, most citizen-induced dangers are accidents, NDs and the like. Most of the time nobody gets hurt.

The simple fact is, as you with your experience very well know, citizens very rarely stop drivers and end up killing the unarmed occupant(s).

Armed citizens don't go looking for trouble. Cops do. This is the inherent difference between the two, and why I seek to treat them differently.

BTW, a citizen has a right to bear arms, but he doesn't have a right to require his employer allow him to be armed while on the job. The employer retains his right to make only those contracts he darn well pleases to enter into. The people, as employer of the police, can similarly set any rules they darn well please with regards to how and the extent to which officers arm themselves while on the job.

So clearly...  there are more chances for people to be hurt and injured at the hands of dangerous citizens.. Thank you!!  :lol:

You have seen this, right??  We was responding to a call for help....  he made a poor decision.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/INDIGAT06_20090706-142201/278327/

First of all, great way to twist things around and willfully ignore the truth, damaging your credibility in the process.

Secondly, nice red herring. Allow me to respond in kind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFNDK8PQGNw

 

[smoking357]

imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

No officer on a traffic stop needs a gun

Yet I'm sure you'd like to be able to have your gun during a traffic stop...

Absolutely.

The officer attacks you, you shouldn't have to just take it and die.

The reality is that if you're attacked by an officer and you defend yourself, they're going to kill you.

You attack the officer, he shouldn't have to just take it and die.

He can defend himself in any way he wants, short of a gun.

 

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

The officer attacks you, you shouldn't have to just take it and die.

The reality is that if you're attacked by an officer and you defend yourself, they're going to kill you.

That's the injustice that needs to be fixed. What you are proposing is simply replacing one injustice with another.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I clarified my point on this page (page 3, near the top).

What that cop needed was backup, not a handgun. The criminal took his gun anyway. :quirky Not exactly the best anecdote to support your case.

Besides, whose to say the gun didn't escalate the situation? Can you prove this would have been just as bad or worse had the officer been disarmed?

He ended up hitting the guy with his gun. A baton would have served him better until backup arrived. Or having backup to start with.

You will notice the cop first used mace and ran to get away. He did not "rush to use his dangerous gun" as you want others to think.

The guy even told the cop "You're going to need more than that!"

No choice but to use deadly force. Second shot is a direct hit! This guy is all over the cop who would not get any distance to swing a baton.

Then the gun jams.... otherwise the cop could have shot him again.

Cops gun is taken. Now he needs a backup gun to go with the gun you do not want him to have in the first place during this traffic stop.

Hitting the guy with the gun had no effect so what good would a baton be anyway.

But remember... you do not want cops to be armed...

Man you are a way out in la-la land with this one.. :lol:

 

[smoking357]

imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

The officer attacks you, you shouldn't have to just take it and die.

The reality is that if you're attacked by an officer and you defend yourself, they're going to kill you.

That's the injustice that needs to be fixed. What you are proposing is simply replacing one injustice with another.

You think it's an injustice, but your arguments fail to support your belief.

 

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

GWRedDragon wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

The officer attacks you, you shouldn't have to just take it and die.

The reality is that if you're attacked by an officer and you defend yourself, they're going to kill you.

That's the injustice that needs to be fixed. What you are proposing is simply replacing one injustice with another.

You think it's an injustice, but your arguments fail to support your belief.

Forcing unarmed LEOs to die at the mercy of crazed citizens is not justice, any more than forcing unarmed citizens to die at the mercy of crazed officers.

Both officers and normal citizens are human beings.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But remember... you do not want cops to be armed...

Absolutely not. Remember, though, I did propose allowing them to be armed under penalty of felony if they unholstered their gun absent a lethal threat.

You didn't like that, either.

Man you are a way out in la-la land with this one..

No. You simply have an unenlightened American perspective.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

First of all, great way to twist things around and willfully ignore the truth, damaging your credibility in the process.

Secondly, nice red herring. Allow me to respond in kind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFNDK8PQGNw

Ah yes.. the cop that pulled what he believed was his taser. This has happened before. Now many cops are required to carry the taser on their weak hand side.

So then it would be OK for the unarmed cop to be killed by the boxer on purpose just becausea cop killed a kid by accident?

I am just so happy this is justa debate and you have no way of making this into any law. :lol:

But you keep dreaming!!! :celebrate