Are you seriously suggesting that the police should have rules of engagement far less strict than those applied by many militaries around the world in literal war zones while fighting actual enemies of their state?

The UK has 4.9x fewer population compared to the USA, yet manages 246x fewer deaths due to policy activity. While some of our police are armed (covering Northern Ireland only - 1.65m population) the majority are not.

The real problem is likely not having armed police, after all, Northern Ireland does not suffer a 246x increase in police-attributed deaths compared to the rest of the UK, but the expectation by police that theirs live are at risk - due to the common access of regular citizens to offensive weaponry

> Northern Ireland does not suffer a 246x increase in police-attributed deaths compared to the rest of the UK

Well, not at the moment, but during the Troubles there were armed troops and armoured cars deployed on the streets. Quite a lot of people were killed by police and army shootings, some of which were extremely illegal (Miami Showband, Bloody Sunday) and one or two of which were actually prosected (Lee Clegg's shooting of Karen Reilly).

Reform of the police was critical to peace there, and will be critical in America. America needs a peace treaty with itself.

More like demilitarize them.

Edit: To the point: Yes. Anyone who can't respect "Don't fire until fired upon" should 100.0000% be disarmed.

I think it has more to do with training and better use-of-force regulations. The police in the States appear to have a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality as evidenced by these events. Disarming them in a country like the US is impossible, but surely better training and stricter rules/penalties would help the situation.

In other countries, not all police carry guns. Those countries are not suffering from the epidemic of gun violence which plagues the US. We are definitely doing something wrong, and they are definitely doing something right. So while we may not disarm the entire police force tomorrow, should we consider ways to deescalate? Hell yes.

It's appropriate for them to have 'less lethal' weapons. It is also far more appropriate for them to be trained in the proper use of force and de-escalation of situations.

Peace officers are supposed to be professionals.

Yes, until they get better trained and stop shooting first. They should also get rid of all of the military style equipment. If they want to be soldiers, then go be a soldier...except soldiers have a set rules to adhere to before shooting at possible hostiles.

Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else, and that right isn't predicated on training or trigger discipline.

> the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else

And we have the right to make them not be police anymore.

Disclosure: I am a staunch Second Amendment supporter, well into the "extreme."

The Second Amendment does not override the employer-employee relationship - firearm possessors are not in a "protected class."

You're free to have that firearm and you may not be arrested for it - even while at your place of employ. We need not maintain your employment, however.

Fair enough, but that leads to an unarmed police force facing an armed populace, which either leads to armed citizen militias filling the power vacuum needed to maintain civil order against that armed populace, or a collapse in civil order, because people aren't going to stop shooting at the police.

Which is why I argue that it's an intractable problem barring repealing the Second Amendment. Even if there are legal ways to accomplish merely disarming the police, it doesn't solve anything unless you disarm everyone.

I didn't say this was a good or reasonable idea, just that it was legally workable.

Then treat them like every other person. Claiming "I thought I saw a gun" after shooting someone means most of the population is going to jail.

I get that accidents happens, but something has clearly gone wrong with either the training or lack there of.

I agree with you, one of the biggest contributors to police violence in my opinion is tolerance for it within the system.

> Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else

Not while acting as government agents they don't, just as those acting as government agents don't have the same freedom of expression and association in that context as they do as private citizens.

In fact, the underlying premise of the second amendment (alluded to, though not expressly stated, in it's preamble) is that there would be no substantial professional military forces or paramilitary police force in the US, and that there would instead be a dependence on (selective or mass, depending on situation) mobilization of the citizen militia to address threats requiring response of an armed force. The second amendment isn't rooted in the idea that having an armed population provides security against government armed forces, it was based on the premise that the government relying on the armed citizenry instead of government armed forces, military or police, was a foundation for securing liberty.

> Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else...

Employers are allowed to say "no guns at work" in other situations, correct? Does a cop have a corresponding First Amendment right to call everyone a n-word while out on patrol?

>Does a cop have a corresponding First Amendment right to call everyone a n-word while out on patrol?

Unfortunately, yes.

That's demonstrably false.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-william...

https://foxync.com/3493743/pennsylvania-police-officer-fired...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-p...

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/police-recruit-fired-rap-lyr...

To be fair, none of these demonstrate that racist remarks aren't protected by the First Amendment, only that employers and society can exact negative consequences for such speech, which is fair, since freedom of speech goes both ways.

As far as I know, racist speech is protected so long as it doesn't provoke violence against specific individuals ("fighting words.") Although IANAL and I'm willing to concede that I might be entirely wrong, and I don't want to go to the mat for racists anyway.

Uhh, what? Yes, they do. We also, as their employers, have a right to restrict the choice of arms we supply them with _as part of their employment_. Or is your argument that police should be able to buy and have whatever weapons they like, without restriction, for their jobs?

As a private person, yes, they have that right. Doesn’t mean the police precinct needs to stock and hand out military or paramilitary equipment to all officers.

Perhaps there should be 2 tiers of officers, with appropriate training and psychological evaluations required for those authorized to carry firearms.

This already exists, with SWAT. They like to shoot people (and dogs) for no good reason, too.

The police in other countries function without guns.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should arm people who can’t even behave with at least the restraint that we expect of soldiers in war zones?

I'm saying they need to get their act together, and for that there must be consequences for not doing so. Make do-not-fire-unless-fired-upon standard RoE. Suspend or fire officers that violate it. Jail officers who kill or maim innocents. Put management that don't do their part on trial.

Yes.

The police, along with everyone else, should be disarmed. NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Guns should only be allowed for hunting.

Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't?

What should they be allowed to defend themselves with? Where do you draw the line? Should a woman not have the right to defend herself against a potentially stronger rapist? Should an individual not have the right to defend himself against a group? A group as small as two on one drastically changes the risk factor if you are a victim. Not everyone has the privilege to be physically fit enough to ward off any attacker with success, nor the privilege to live or work in a safe area.

So, how does the vast majority of the country live without guns?

Is everyone without guns dead?

How do they manage to survive, but gun owners can't without their guns?

> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun.

I'm exceptionally happy that you are not the one making the decisions on these rules then. You appear to not have put much thought into this at all.

We already know what happens in a world completely bereft of firearms, it's called history. And history is dark and brutish for much of it, until very very recently. Firearms are but one of many technological advancements human society has achieved that has brought about an end to the dark and brutish existence we lived until now. Why, you might ask?

Quite simply, eliminating firearms returns society to a situation in which defense is only possible through literal force of arms (e.g. the force you can exert with the arms attached to your body) which greatly enhances the power of those who are physically fit when they behave in a brutish manner. In your world the old, infirm, meek, physically unfit, and women have no effective way to defend themselves. Self-defense becomes the hallmark of only the strong, and something which is a far bloodier and less sure affair.

Spare me your world, because I have been a student of history and I see what that world is like. I like the world I live in now, where I can be reasonably assured that I will not be attacked by someone simply because of my small stature and have the legal and practical means to defend myself if I am.

Please don't use simplistic models of the world. You don't have enough information to deduce how the world works and know how everyone in society behaves.

I do.

Pro-tip: ask yourself how the vast majority of people in the country live without firearms.

And ask yourself why they don't live in fear, while you do.

Perhaps government should offer mental-health counseling services for people that seem to be unable to live without firearms? You know, in order to allow these people to live normal lives like the rest of society, without fear of dying a violent gruesome death.

Again, if a 90-year old grandma can live without firearms, you can, too!

All of us have enough information to know that violent crimes still happen - and people should be allowed to defend themselves from it - that's a human right, after all. Fact is, if the attacker is bigger than you, you're going to need a weapon to defend yourself.

> You don't have enough information to deduce how the world works and know how everyone in society behaves.

> I do.

Your trollish arrogance notwithstanding, we both have the required available information to deduce the outcome of your proposed policies. We have documented history for centuries that clearly shows what that outcome would be.

How are you going to fight off two or more 250lb men with knives who want your wallet, your life, and your wife?

Harsh words?

And when Elmer Fudd decides to commit a crime with his hunting rifle, what should the police do about it?

Are you saying we should allow more crimes since we can't stop all crimes?

Were you trying to reply to a different comment?

also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.

I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops.

The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.

At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars.

None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances.

The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.

Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say?

Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?

> If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

> mass shooting deaths

Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country.

> suicides

Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights?

> law enforcement killings

Do you know how few of these actually happen?

> accidental discharges by children

Sad, but statistically very rare.

> road rage incidents

??

> and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA

I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place.

You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.

Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere.

In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.

I posed this question in another thread, but I think it is interesting in other people's perspectives:

As a citizen in the developed world, how do you defend yourself against violence?

How would your (wife|husband|child|grandmother) defend theirselves?

I am not tough enough to physically fend off multiple violent aggressors, unfortunately.

How many scenarios are you likely to face in your life where it's necessary to "fend off multiple violent aggressors"? Is it a statistically significant number? How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it).

Even in the rare circumstance where there is a violent confrontation, most people are not able to effectively wield a firearm and make the situation better than it would have been without. That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.

> Is it a statistically significant number

It's non-zero and happens quite frequently where I live. Not all of us are privileged.

> How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it

Meanwhile, the victim is raped or not alive to see this possible "justice."

What a fucking joke - I'll take my chances with a firearm instead. "Justice after the fact" isn't acceptable to me, I'd rather stop the crime being committed against me from happening.

> That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.

Just a moment ago you were a citizen of the "developed world," where firearms apparently don't exist and violence doesn't happen, and now you understand how "hard" it is to utilize and use firearms for one's protection? Really curious as to where your knowledge comes from!

You never answered my question, either. You presupposed that these "situations don't happen" as your argument. Should I just take this to mean the default of: "I cannot protect myself or my family from violent individuals?"

> suicides

Suicides should be a human right (and I don't see how they are relevant to guns anyway).

> overseas military adventurism

Colonialism was a thing that started before the american revolution.

> law enforcement killings

Authoritarianism and all the deaths caused by it existed since the ancient times.

> Suicides should be a human right (and I don't see how they are relevant to guns anyway)

Sure, and I'm there with you on that. However, gun suicide attempts are worse than most other means in the sense that very little preparation or premeditation is required— you can pull the trigger in an instant and there's no recovering from it.

Quoting a Vox piece from 2015: "There's a popular myth that suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves no matter what, and that closing off one method (like guns) will just lead to an increase in suicides through other methods (like hanging or overdoses). But most suicides aren't committed by determined people who can't be talked out of it. They're impulsive actions that can usually be prevented by small barriers. Many survivors say they deliberated less than a day, and sometimes for only a matter of minutes, before making a suicide attempt."

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control

Gun suicides are some of the most painless - why force someone who wants to end their life experience hell through their last moments?

> very little preparation or premeditation is required

Assuming that you already own a gun.

I do agree with what you said, but I don't believe that trying to limit the freedom of someone to kill themselves using a gun is the best solution.

Did you actually read the article?

The point is that there is at least one gun in 1/3 US households. So someone living in one of those households can have a passing thought of suicide, and then act on it irreversibly in a matter of minutes. You're welcome, I guess, to frame that in terms of limiting someone's freedom, but it doesn't have to be about the government taking away the guns; maybe there's just an argument there that having a gun in your house is unwise given the potential impact it could have on future you or your family members. An alcoholic doesn't keep beer in their fridge either, because the potential for self harm is too great.

Me too, but I have relatives who grew up in families where hunting was a thing and they just don't see it this way at all— to them, a hunting rifle is exactly as dangerous as a kitchen knife or circular saw. Basically, a tool that has a time and place and needs to be treated with respect.

Which is not unreasonable, but more importantly, someone with this context sees comments about taking away hunting guns as ignorant urban superiority, scapegoating, and cultural disregard.

I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).

Hunting helps sustain the environment, so it does have its useful purpose, and guns become a tool for that purpose.

Hunting helps fix a problem that, one could argue, was caused by hunting in the first place (the hunting of predators - wolves, mountain lions, etc.)

> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun

Why?

This is painting the devil on the wall.

First, out of all risks you face in life, "multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm" is not really the one that you should be worrying about.

Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon? But how will an automatic weapon help you take on assailants armed with hand grenades and RPGs? So then you need hand grenades and RPGS? Tanks? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? Your reasoning can be taken arbitrarily far.

Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life?

> is not really the one that you should be worrying about.

Not all of us are as privileged as you to live in a safe area.

> Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon

A handgun is good enough of an equalizer in the situations I am likely to face. For the relatively low cost, effort required, there's no substitute.

> Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life?

- How is it your place to determine the likelihood that I get into a violent altercation? - Why does my area now require some standard of "likelihood of violence" before I am allowed to protect myself?

- How is it your place to make these risk-based judgment calls for me and others?

The fact is: carrying a firearm takes ten seconds out of my day (to put on). Some might describe that as "living in fear," but I'll trade the ten seconds for the capabilities having said firearm confers. It's really not a big deal, despite what some might think.

I'll also take the time to test and install fire extinguishers in my home.. or is my home catching fire a "very unlikely risk" I shouldn't be prepared for, too, in one's expert opinion?

Many, many, many countries have far stricter controls on either weapons or ammunition, and those countries aren't filled with roving armed gangs attacking 90-year-old women and single mothers.

This is fear-mongering, based on wildly unrealistic assertions about the world.

> roving armed gangs attacking 90-year-old women and single mothers.

So basically: this woman isn't allowed to defend herself from burglars, is that what you are saying?

> This is fear-mongering, based on wildly unrealistic assertions about the world.

It's great that you are privileged enough to live in an area without any violent crime! That's truly great!

I don't live in a safe area, so I don't believe that you or others have any right nor place to make that decision for me.

> fear-mongering,

Home burglaries are the number one type of crime in my area. Home invasions happen, whether you want to call them "fear-mongering" or not. Should I just not be able to defend my home, my person, my family? Should I trust the good will of the felon who broke in NOT to harm me further or take my things?

Hell, I suggest that we disband the police entirely.