zlacker

I agree, but the more I hear about the defund the police narrative the more an agree. Some of these interaction have 0 reason to be adversarial.

For example the Rayshard brooks shooting. Why was a gun needed to wake a man sleeping in a car. Why are guns needed to hand out speeding tickets.

I get that guns are needed if a bank is being robbed. But this is glorified customer service work. Imagine your car breaks down and the AAA guy who came to fix it had a gun. Like y tho?

>>DeonPe+(OP)
Hmm, let me see. Why might the police need guns to hand out speeding tickets?

Perhaps it's because at least some of the people they stop, for speeding or other possible offences, won't take kindly to being stopped and in many parts of the USA, those in the vehicle may be permitted to carry guns of their own...

Glorified customer service work? Far from it

>>rutthe+62
But we actually have data on this. Traffic stops are not particularly dangerous for police in the United States. There are laws in place about how legal gun owners must notify law enforcement during traffic stops. In fact, there is no shortage of video of law-abiding citizens in the US notifying law enforcement that they have a legal firearm in the vehicle and receiving a disproportionate response. But you don’t even need to look that closely. There are also video clips of police stops where police tell someone to get their ID, and then immediately murder the person for reaching for their ID.

>>baddox+Y7
> There are laws in place about how legal gun owners must notify law enforcement during traffic stops.

Isn't the issue with laws that those breaking them don't usually care about laws? I'm sure you have laws in place against murder, and murder still happens. "But there's a law against burglary, why would you want additional protection and have a strong door" isn't a good argument.

There are good arguments (and the whole issue is a good gun control argument in general), but that really isn't one.

>>luckyl+Eb
It doesn't matter about the law, it matters that traffic stops aren't particularly dangerous. So the gun serves as elephant repellent in Manhattan.

>>luckyl+Eb
The comment before mine mentions that people being stopped by police are permitted to have guns. That’s what I was addressing.

Sure, there are also some people who violate gun laws. But those people could be a threat to everyone, not just cops, yet surely we wouldn’t justify everyone to preemptively have their guns drawn in all human interactions.

>>baddox+B81
> Sure, there are also some people who violate gun laws. But those people could be a threat to everyone, not just cops, yet surely we wouldn’t justify everyone to preemptively have their guns drawn in all human interactions.

Not necessarily drawn, but isn't that pretty much the reason you have public carry laws in the first place? Surely even the worst of cars does provide sufficient protection against roaming coyotes and mountain lions. The only predator left to fear is another human.