| |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would prefer less people die, actually. | | |
| ▲ | nemomarx 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | If it comes down to it, I would prefer an officer die compared to an innocent civilian mistakenly die because a cop was scared or already had their finger on the trigger. Their job is to serve the public, accepting some level of risks is part of this. "About as risky as low paid delivery work" doesn't seem unreasonably high to me basically. Most cops die in car crashes, not being shot by potential suspects as it stands. | | |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed. | | |
| ▲ | genewitch 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not correct. to the best of my memory, no year since the 90s has had more than 100 or 200 total officer fatalities in the line of duty. Police routinely kill 3 people a day. it's a pretty high bar to say that all three people the police kill every day were warranted. most line of duty deaths involve not wearing a seatbelt. | | |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is where I think you're wrong. The vast, vast majority of people killed by police are warranted. People routinely threaten officers' lives with guns, and get killed for it. It's unfortunate, but it happens. People aren't just getting shot by police for no reason regularly. | |
| ▲ | quietsegfault 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s 60-70 felonious deaths a year. |
| |
| ▲ | nemomarx 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | can you show me those numbers please | |
| ▲ | quietsegfault 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous. | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | kittoes 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why does this always have to be binary when any amount of gun control is suggested? It's simple math: if me didn't manufacture so many guns and didn't make them so readily available then there will inherently be less danger... this isn't even debatable! | | |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago. | | |
| ▲ | kittoes 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen". | | |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The UK, Australia, and Brazil have significantly less firearms (which makes gun control a million times easier), and are not constitutionally granted the right to bear them (which makes gun control unconstitutional). If you go ahead start a new country with no guns and implement strict gun control, sure, it would probably have less gun deaths, but that's irrelevant to the American policy debate. Criminals in America will have ridiculously easy access to guns for a long time, and further restrictions on ownership will only decrease law-abiding gun-ownership rates. | |
| ▲ | genewitch 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you? | | |
| ▲ | kittoes 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed. | | |
| ▲ | genewitch 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, are these the same people? so only the militia gets to be secure? Are you sure? |
| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.” (If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | quietsegfault an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | Barbing 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes and in the meantime, respond with all available resources? (pretending my parents, wife, children are police officers and posting from that perspective, but do not like taste of boot nor Flock - just thinking logical on the ground procedure accounting for broken larger system) | | |
| ▲ | nemomarx 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Try pretending your wife and children are in a car being pulled over for a drug inspection and think from that perspective. Or to have their papers checked to make sure they're not illegal aliens, whichever you prefer. | | |
| ▲ | Barbing 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Great point, not fair for them to need a lifetime of therapy. So there’s a happy medium. I don’t know why the first thing that comes to mind is calling in for backup and having a cop in a mascot costume get out, with body armor and a completely concealed weapon at the ready underneath. They cheerfully chat up the adult driver, say hi to the kid & give a sticker, and once they assess it’s safe they can move onto the next call while the uniformed officer comes to discuss the situation. Doesn’t help the adult much though I guess, we’d know about the concealed weapon. … btw maybe sending a drone or a robot actually came to mind first, but those solutions are uncomfortable - OK w/a million caveats maybe (Instead of posting something so stupid I could’ve left it at I hope there’s a happy medium!) |
|
|
|
