zlacker

The idea that the situation would be improved by the protesters being able to shoot police is... Questionable.

The better solution is unarmed police: billions of people live in localities where most police they encounter don't have guns and may not be even authorized to make physical contact in the case of a conflict. The idea that all police must carry guns and must be ready to use violence "to protect us" is one of those assumptions you assume must be universal until you somehow find out that it very particular to certain locations.

>>scarmi+(OP)
I wouldn’t go that far. The US has so many guns it would be suicide for police not to have them.

>>scarmi+(OP)
The protestors being able to shoot police is the situation now, presently, and has been for a long while. Many, many people have firearms in America.

Police are not generally being shot at.

The situation you describe is not a violent one.

What I think would be a better situation is a much higher percentage of visibly armed protestors. You didn’t see police beating and attacking any of the armed protests last month, and there’s a reason for that that extends beyond their being mostly white people.

People like to condemn the previous protests for being armed, and for protesting for something that was dumb (reopening businesses during a pandemic), but the armed part will become more and more important for any meaningful protest in America, as we have now learned that if you aren’t, the police will just come and attack you with sticks or gas or cars or the threat of their own rifles.

People shouldn’t carry guns to shoot them, they should carry them to indicate to everyone around them that nobody wants a fight, which is generally the same reason police do.

Criminals don’t attack cops in groups because criminals know that if they do, 20 cops have weapons that will be used against them in seconds.

I would love to be able to say: “cops don’t attack protestors because cops know that if they do, 20 protestors have weapons that will be used against them in seconds”.

>>scarfa+E2
Just as the police have so many guns it would be suicide for the oppressed classes not to have them. (Just as we have seen.)

The police in America are extremely well-armed, far better than the general public in most places. It poses a real danger, as we have seen playing out over the last few years.

>>scarfa+E2
How would it be suicide? I walk around plenty of places in the US, many with lots of guns, and don't particularly worry about getting killed.

It's only dangerous when you work under the assumption that the primary role of police is getting into altercations with people or doing things that require the potential for the immediate deployment of violence. The vast majority of police work doesn't require that.

Some small proportion of police should be armed so they can be called in for the exceptional case, but that's not necessary for most cops. The potential cost and messiness of any kind of use of physical force (armed or not) is usually far higher than the cost of what it's intended to remedy.

>>scarfa+E2
When you can walk into a supermarket and buy a machine gun off the shelf, I would agree with you. If you take the guns off everybody though, this changes completely. All of a sudden you don't need a lethal weapon and instead can start carrying none lethal weapons. That's a whole different debate though

>>h3cate+MK
A “War on Guns” won’t take the guns from everyone. The “War on Guns” will target minorities just like every other “War on $x”.

See the “War on Drugs” in the “inner city” and “Treat Drugs like a Disease” when it affects “rural America”.