Why should only police have guns?

So tell me, those of you who support gun-control, why should only police be allowed to have all the guns?
You don't think police officers can make mistakes or commit crime too?

Why can common citizens— citizens who can presumably be trusted to elect our government — not be trusted to posses a gun?

As for "special training", how much of a difference do a few classes really make? Everything is already so overcredentialised. I do not see a point in requiring everyone to go through some long training course just to be able to own a gun. If some training or education is required, it should be as short and to the point as possible, and the government should allow would-be gun owners to meet the requirement through classes provided by organisations that are not under government oversight. It should be concerning if the government were allowed to monopolise the pathway to gun ownership.

 

So that they can shoot you without you shooting back.

 

Exactly. So whether police should have a monopoly on the ownership of guns is entirely dependant on how much trust you place in the police - the police force, individual officers, including foresight into how change could potentially happen in the future. And this trust also includes whether you can trust the police to provide adequate protection for you.

In several countries, such as Mexico, the police just cannot be trusted to do these things because of all the corruption. In many rural areas, the people are less reliant on a professional police force for immediate protection. It does not really make sense to be wholly dependant on a local police force when the police do not have the capability of providing immediate protection to everyone, due either to not enough employed officers, or due to large remotely inhabited areas.

 

I'd have to look at the numbers of police shootings that were useful vs. police shootings that had bad results.

Honestly I've not looked at them so I won't offer an opinion.. But I would say, when considering the useful shootings, you have to consider if other options may have been available.

What I do know is, you get cops tazering people already down, tazering skinny old people, grannies, children etc. They even kill people with their "non-lethal" weapons.

So better training and accountability is probably the best thing they need right now.

 

And as for the public which I think is more what you were asking, just leave it the way it is, as decided by the states. Leave it as it is wherever you are in the world actually... The US should not disarm and other countries probably would be worse off arming themselves now.

 

I dont know where I got this and it may not be so but i recall seeing something to the effect that civilians have a better record on bad shootings than the police do.

 

It doesn't sound right.. Because I'm pretty sure civilians shoot a lot more people than cops do.. And violently.. So you'd have to distinguish them away and just say we only mean civilians defending themselves or whatever.. But then you'd have to do the same for cops, and say unjustified shootings by cops were also criminal so they don't count. And you wind up getting nowhere.

I've never heard such a stat but I'm saying if it existed I can't see how it would work.

 

Where are you talking about in Scandinavia ?

Question = Why should any one want a gun in a decent civerlisation ?

Answer = they shouldn't not within it.

Conclusion = We don't live in decent civerlisations.

Remedy = Give every bastard a bloody Gun ! ...Honestly ..... lol Which centuary is this ? I fogot ........

 

why do some people feel they are the arbiter of what a 'decent civilization' is?

 

If civilians were barred from possessing firearms on the premise of effective gun control; then why would police need firearms?

Its not like criminals would still possess firearms. Thats just nonsense.

 

Are not any of the proponents of gun control at all concerned about too much centralisation of power?
When a single government entity has been given the power over who is allowed to have a gun, and the criteria and allowances become more restrictive over time, at what point should the line be drawn and the alarm raised? Sure, we seem to have (mostly) trustworthy governments now. But is it really inconceivable that in the future the government could turn tyrannical? Or that the military forces could turn against the government? If we look back at history, including the twentieth century, we can observe that this is exactly what happened time and time again.

Or how long do you think the Negroes would have been enslaved in America had they been armed?
Have not the recent events in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria not taught us anything?

 

And this is the real underpinning, and irrational fear

Not "The government will take my rights away"

Not "I will not live in a democracy anymore"

but

"The black people will take over"

It is a fear that has driven by white nationalist propaganda fuelled by the NRA backed by the Armaments industry.

Follow the money in the gun debate and it comes down to the fact that America has a thriving armaments industry that profits nicely from this form of cultural paranoia

 

Your comment can be excused because you dont know American history.

Gun control was created out of the fear that slaves would revolt. Original gun control in America was that blacks could not own a weapon of any kind and dates to the early 1700's. The entire point of Anders Hovelands post was that if blacks had been armed slavery would not have lasted very long. Firearms are the great equalizer.

Its interesting that you ignore the first section of Anders post and only concerned yourself with misinterpreting the line about slaves. And it points even stronger to your bias that you attribute a racist motivation to your favourite whipping boy the NRA.

 

Actually, it's just the reverse; gun control was a tool used to oppress the Negroe and keep him defenseless and vulnerable:

"Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves."
- Malcolm X

Martin Luther King Jr. owned guns, and applied for a concealed carry permit:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Actually it has been the gun control freaks that have been benefitting the American Armaments Industry by refusing to allow importation of guns from outside, guns which are legal to produce and own within the country.
http://www.volokh.com/2010/09/01/obama-import-ban-on-rifles-confirmed/

 

Hunting.. Shooting targets and bottles and such...

You don't need a bow and arrow either but you've still got archery as an olympic event.

 

The part in bold is pure falsehood. It is, tho typical of your arguments.
Strawmen and falsehoods.

The rest is impure falsehoods.

 

Indeed it is

All one has to do is research 'NRA in Monroe,North Carolina'

 

You won't get an argument for me. Living in a police state where citizens have no means to advocate for themselves is the scariest, most awful thing in the world. It sucks the humanity right out of you, its a waste of a life, its a crime against humanity.

I think he's referring more to "legitimate/illegitimate" rather than "good/bad" I think shooting each other in general should be avoided whenever possible.

Yes, Mexico is notorious. My boyfriend is from Mexico City and his uncle was a cop and he refused to by paid off either to actually commit a crime or let one happen under his nose and he was killed. Also I seem to remember about a year ago Mexico fired all its police force one day due to the widespread corruption or a scandal, I don't remember. Anyway Mexico has a lot of issues I'm a little scared to go there and I've been in some (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up places in my life.

 

Same difference.

 

How???

 

The notion that the government has to take away guns from all its citizens to protect everyone is based on the irrational fear of guns.
There are many other ways to kill a person that doesn't require a gun.

Yes, on rare occasions there will be mass shootings in public by deranged individuals. People will die.
We are just going to have to accept this as a fact of life. Not every problem in society should be solved with more government legislation.
Far many more people die in car crashes, colon cancer, or even just from little mundane accidental falls (mostly the elderly). It is just that the occasional shootings are far more sensational and make headlines, often by a media that is trying to turn public sentiment against gun ownership.

 

When I say good shooting it's the same as "legitimate" shooting....Self defense, protection of life and safety of others, and necessary as the only viable options to do these. When I say bad shooting it's the same as an illegitimate shooting. One that should not have occurred. Shooting a crook in the back running away with your TV set, shooting the cops that are chasing you, shooting the suspect with his hands in the air, shooting the suspect for whom you later found out had no gun on him, cold blooded murder, etc.

Feel free to choose ANY terms and definitions you want for which that statistic can possibly hold true, in which civilians have a better record on shooting than cops do.

When it was mentioned, the person didn't know the specific statistic, just the rough idea of it. I'm saying I can't think of any terms or any specific stat like that that can hold true.. If you can, then tell me it with the specific and defined terms. All the brainstorming in the world and I couldn't.

 

Sounds like textbook conspiracy theory to me.

 

Does it? How?

Please explain it to me.........

 

'It is a fear that has driven by white nationalist propaganda fuelled by the NRA backed by the Armaments industry.'

You should really read this to yourself out loud.

Classic conspiracy theory.