zlacker

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

>>scarfa+(OP)
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+(OP)
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+(OP)
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+8I
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”.