Arming police is backward step (UK needs help) - Page 3




 
--
Arming police is backward step (UK needs help)
 
June 18th, 2007  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Arming police is backward step (UK needs help)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
June 18th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
I kind of agree with 5.56. The way I see it, there is always going to be a certain amount of violence in society. It'll require much deeper change in the culture and civilization than gun laws to reduce it. You have four options: 1) Never get into any sort of conflict and have the luck not to be predated upon by a criminal/killer. 2) Fight in fist fights 3) Get shot 4) Shoot back.
June 18th, 2007  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by major liability
I kind of agree with 5.56. The way I see it, there is always going to be a certain amount of violence in society. It'll require much deeper change in the culture and civilization than gun laws to reduce it. You have four options: 1) Never get into any sort of conflict and have the luck not to be predated upon by a criminal/killer. 2) Fight in fist fights 3) Get shot 4) Shoot back.
The problem with 5.56s arguments is that they always end up with potential victims becoming the predator which is an inherent problem when you seek to generate unreasonable levels of fear and paranoia amongst the populace.

One of the huge flaws in the 5.56 approach to firearms solving all problems in a paranoid society is that it fails to take into account the escalation which you have indicated in your four points, essentially as you arm your society the balance of those four points moves from what now is predominantly in favour of points 1 and 2 to a situation backing points 3 and 4 as a likely outcome and I dont know about you but I don't see that as a step forward.

In the end it is all about finding a balance where those that can responsibly use and maintain firearms should be able to get them with relative ease while those that cant need to be excluded and yes I know no system is fool proof but it has to be better than 5.56s idea of handing them out to everyone in the hopes of creating a level playing field.
--
Arming police is backward step (UK needs help)
June 19th, 2007  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm


When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.


There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
1)Of course they can deal with you by force. Anybody can put a bullet in the back of someone's skull. The force will become brutal..... but it sure as hell won't go away.
If you think this, then you are saying that the crime statistics in the US are due to the unarmed people. If everybody has a gun = no crime therefor crime = not everybody has a gun.

2) We have a police force that investigates crimes and arrest criminals. They don't catch all of them but neither does the police in any other country. Daily living shows us the citizens armed to the teeth do not prevent petty theft etc. It happens everywhere, with or without guns.
June 19th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
5.56

What you are forgetting is the criminals carry guns too. The days of muggers carrying knifes and bats has been replaced by the ease of Criminals getting guns, which in the USA is laughably easy. So if the criminals AND the victims are both armed what you've got is a very dangerous Mexican standoff. In that type of situation, its typically the criminal who wins as he is more used to violence than your average civilian is, not to mention the increased chance of a passerby getting caught in the crossfire.
June 19th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
If a criminal wants to kill an armed citizen, the best way to do it would be to set up an accident and avoid confrontation altogether. Like the poison they spilled on Litvinenko or whatever his name was, or the Mafia hitman who would "accidentally" pour his poisoned drink on his marks. If someone was really after me, having a gun would only make me feel marginally safer.
June 23rd, 2007  
jequirity
 
 
Bobbies on the beat with guns? Its up to them i guess, they know better than most and most of them say they'd prefer not to be armed (At least ~78%ish). There are also arguments for arming bobbies in the article too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4544188.stm
June 23rd, 2007  
jequirity
 
 
Bobbies on the beat with guns? Its up to them i guess, they know better than most and most of them say they'd prefer not to be armed (At least ~78%ish). There are also arguments for arming bobbies in the article too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4544188.stm
June 24th, 2007  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jequirity
Bobbies on the beat with guns? Its up to them i guess, they know better than most and most of them say they'd prefer not to be armed (At least ~78%ish). There are also arguments for arming bobbies in the article too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4544188.stm
Will be interesting to see what the current survey shows, certainly the last 2 two surveys have shown little variation but with current events this one may be different.
June 24th, 2007  
FO Seaman
 
 
80% of criminals aquire firearms from out of the country, (i.e. Mexico, Canada, ect...)

It's a right ensured to US citizens. If you open the can of worms, it only gets worse. Tell them they can regulate and control, and they will take and restrict. All government, democracy or communist always thinks it has it's citizens best interests in mind, but hardly asks the citizens.

You think that the US form of government is all fine and dandy, but you don't live here. Yes our country has a democracy and the government makes the laws, but so do states and counties. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Currently there are over 200 gun laws, that is infringment.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

INFRINGED!

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

INFRINGED!

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

IFRINGED!


Our government is much, much more complex then you seem to think it is. And it as any government can be corrupted.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutly."
 


Similar Topics
Patch Collecting?
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
US Officer Spells Out Iraq Police Training Woes
Report Faults Training Of Afghan Police
Rioters pelt Sydney police with Molotov cocktails