Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me

Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Equality: I want citizens to have the same access to guns as cops under the same general conditions for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)
3
38%
Cops Armed; Citizens Disarmed: I want cops and government agents to have access to more powerful guns than similarly trained and similarly qualified citizens.
4
50%
Cops Disarmed; Citizens Armed: I want trained citizens to have have access to more powerful guns than similarly trained cops.
1
13%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6549
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by LuckyR »

Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 5:38 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:13 pm
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 11:32 am
LuckyR wrote: December 6th, 2021, 3:12 am

Several things.

First, the majority of murders are by folks the victim knew, not strangers. Therefore the second paragraph goes up in smoke.

Second, the best way to avoid a stranger murder attempt (which do happen on occasion), isn't a weapon, or a law enforcement officer. It is living your life in such a way that you aren't on the radar of murderers, who, BTW are not average citizens.

Because of the first two, the only way a firearm is going to have a greater chance of providing protection than harm to you (since they can do both at known rates), is if you are at so high of a risk of being murdered that you have other problems you should be addressing besides firearms.
Hopefully you are lucky enough and you do not live in such an area at high risk of terror as so many people can't afford to live elsewhere. In Israel passers-by open fire on terrorists as one man. These are not normal conditions, I know, but if the same happens in Europe, well, people will have to wait for the counter-terrorist forces to arrive on the scene, but in the meantime, eighty to a hundred people will die.

I think terrorists and criminals deserve to talk to them in their own language. And the victims would deserve to be able to fight back. If predators are lurking around us we have to be armed. The solution is not to run away. We cannot escape forever.

If you live in 'normal' country the risk is enormously low to be a victim of terrorism and crime, indeed, but the same rules apply. it can happen to anyone that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you need to be prepared for that, because it's technically and infrastructurally possible for the reason mentioned above, and everyone has only one life.

SP
Well, you are correct that you only have one life. Thus it is odd you aren't addressing the known risks of firearms in increasing the risk of accidents and suicides. You are also correct that I personally live in a "normal" country as I suspect the vast majority of posters on this Forum do. I mentioned that if your risk of stranger murder and/or terrorism is so high to outweigh the known risk to the owner of gun possession, then (and only then) should you use safety as your reason for gun ownership. Naturally there are numerous non safety reasons, but we're not discussing those here. You are correct that regardless of where you live you "need to be prepared for" the possibility of crime, but it is an error to suppose that the only or best way to prepare is by acquiring an instrument that has a higher statistical chance of harming your family than protecting you.
I also would like to live in a world where no guns are needed, in a totally gun free world, but sadly this is not that world. I do not deny that there may be a problem with the possession of a firearm, just as a kitchen knife or car is responsible for many accidents, but I cannot understand how this could be a bigger problem than that the victims of a crime or terrorist attack do not have an effective means to defend themselves. Of course there are people who shouldn't hold gun, because they are mentally unstable or unfit. But I am not talking about them, but about responsible, innocent law-abiding citizens whose rights to effective self-defense are being violated in many countries, and who would never obtain a weapon from illegal sources like criminals and terrorists do.

SP
Uummm, okay, lots of people didn't take statistics. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, 24,000. Gun related homicides are about 15,000, but about 2,200 are killed by their spouse. About 500 die of gun related accidents. So 26,700 gun deaths of family members of gun owners per year or about 8 per 100,000 population. Only one third of US households own guns so the risk is 24 per 100,000 in gun owning households.

So in order for a gun to have a chance of preventing your death at a higher chance than causing one in your family, you would have to live where the murder rate was higher than 24 per 100,000 assuming you were 100% effective at preventing your murder. Obviously, that would be a gross overestimation of the ability of the abilities of gun owners. Let's be generous and say 25% of murders could be prevented by owning a gun. In that case you would have to live where the murder rate was 96 per 100,000

The US has a murder rate overall of 4.9. It is higher in big cities. St Louis is the highest in the US at 69, so it doesn't even make sense there. Worldwide is different as you pointed out. Tijuana, Mexico has 138 per 100,000, others that qualify would Acapulco and Caracas, Venezuela. I assume you don't live in any of those cities.
"As usual... it depends."
Stoic Spirit
Posts: 15
Joined: July 26th, 2021, 10:03 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Stoic Spirit »

LuckyR wrote: December 19th, 2021, 3:48 am
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 5:38 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:13 pm
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 11:32 am

Hopefully you are lucky enough and you do not live in such an area at high risk of terror as so many people can't afford to live elsewhere. In Israel passers-by open fire on terrorists as one man. These are not normal conditions, I know, but if the same happens in Europe, well, people will have to wait for the counter-terrorist forces to arrive on the scene, but in the meantime, eighty to a hundred people will die.

I think terrorists and criminals deserve to talk to them in their own language. And the victims would deserve to be able to fight back. If predators are lurking around us we have to be armed. The solution is not to run away. We cannot escape forever.

If you live in 'normal' country the risk is enormously low to be a victim of terrorism and crime, indeed, but the same rules apply. it can happen to anyone that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you need to be prepared for that, because it's technically and infrastructurally possible for the reason mentioned above, and everyone has only one life.

SP
Well, you are correct that you only have one life. Thus it is odd you aren't addressing the known risks of firearms in increasing the risk of accidents and suicides. You are also correct that I personally live in a "normal" country as I suspect the vast majority of posters on this Forum do. I mentioned that if your risk of stranger murder and/or terrorism is so high to outweigh the known risk to the owner of gun possession, then (and only then) should you use safety as your reason for gun ownership. Naturally there are numerous non safety reasons, but we're not discussing those here. You are correct that regardless of where you live you "need to be prepared for" the possibility of crime, but it is an error to suppose that the only or best way to prepare is by acquiring an instrument that has a higher statistical chance of harming your family than protecting you.
I also would like to live in a world where no guns are needed, in a totally gun free world, but sadly this is not that world. I do not deny that there may be a problem with the possession of a firearm, just as a kitchen knife or car is responsible for many accidents, but I cannot understand how this could be a bigger problem than that the victims of a crime or terrorist attack do not have an effective means to defend themselves. Of course there are people who shouldn't hold gun, because they are mentally unstable or unfit. But I am not talking about them, but about responsible, innocent law-abiding citizens whose rights to effective self-defense are being violated in many countries, and who would never obtain a weapon from illegal sources like criminals and terrorists do.

SP
Uummm, okay, lots of people didn't take statistics. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, 24,000. Gun related homicides are about 15,000, but about 2,200 are killed by their spouse. About 500 die of gun related accidents. So 26,700 gun deaths of family members of gun owners per year or about 8 per 100,000 population. Only one third of US households own guns so the risk is 24 per 100,000 in gun owning households.

So in order for a gun to have a chance of preventing your death at a higher chance than causing one in your family, you would have to live where the murder rate was higher than 24 per 100,000 assuming you were 100% effective at preventing your murder. Obviously, that would be a gross overestimation of the ability of the abilities of gun owners. Let's be generous and say 25% of murders could be prevented by owning a gun. In that case you would have to live where the murder rate was 96 per 100,000

The US has a murder rate overall of 4.9. It is higher in big cities. St Louis is the highest in the US at 69, so it doesn't even make sense there. Worldwide is different as you pointed out. Tijuana, Mexico has 138 per 100,000, others that qualify would Acapulco and Caracas, Venezuela. I assume you don't live in any of those cities.
Quite true, the victims whose lives are under direct threat of crime and terror, do not care about the statistics indeed. When your life at the stake you don't bother with statistic. But even if you're right about not owning firearms causes less trouble than owning gun in mass scale, you are still at error on the other hand. If you want to commit a suicide or kill your spouse it can be perfectly implemented with no gun involved, with nylon bag, knife, hammer, and with so many stuffs you can acquire legally with no permission needed, but are perfectly suitable for killing. If you really want to murder someone, having no gun won't prevent you doing so. For example the former-Soviet region is totally gun free regarding for civilians, buy the suicide and homicide rate are five times higher than anywhere in the West. In the CIS countries, in Eastern-Europe or Central-Asia the vast majority of domestic violence are committed with no firearm involved.

Switzerland and Israel on the other hand are relatively safe from legally owned guns. The gun alone don't make anyone criminal. So the gun is only one tool of many in hands of criminals for committing homicide, but for the victims the only efficient tool to protect their lives, since criminals are already advantaged by default. If the fragile woman is attacked by a three times higher and heavier male I don't see how to balance the odds without allowing the victim to be armed. And you can't answer that either.

But the fundamental issue is still untouched. Why responsible, innocent, law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves against criminals and terrorists with firearm if it's necessary? I repeat, I'm not talking about mentally degenerated, emotionally unstable people, who shouldn't own gun indeed, and who obviously contribute to negative statistics.

So as you can see, every case is unique which must be handled individually and independently, regardless of any statistics. So many people shouldn't hold gun as I said, but this cannot be influenced by that so many people would desperately need effective self-defense. Because every case is unique without affecting each other in vast majority of cases.

Tijuana, Mexico, well, I don't know how good this example. I didn't see statistic with crime related to legally owned guns (not criminal or drug cartel owned weapons). I tend to agree with you in that so many people shouldn't hold gun even legally, but again, the best protection or even the only one effective defense against this either is letting the guns fall into proper hands, (victims, and body guards, amateurs and professionals with good intentions).

One more thing to consider, everyone has a choice to select their partner. Everyone can select people whom they want hangling with. But no one can choose their random murderer.

It was a bit philosophical, but go ahead with statistics, the collective judgement on cases which not relating each other can be informative too especially after growing up in communist country, in a totally gun free zone, where the crime, prostitustion, ethnic tension skyrocketed. But we celebrated a 0% official crime rate. Of course the USA is a whole different matter, but the firearms and crime relation might be different in Alaska and Detroit. I suppose in neither place you can afford hanging with no gun.

No problem can be solved with making potential victims even more vulnerable.

SP
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6549
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by LuckyR »

Stoic Spirit wrote: December 19th, 2021, 8:59 am
LuckyR wrote: December 19th, 2021, 3:48 am
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 5:38 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:13 pm

Well, you are correct that you only have one life. Thus it is odd you aren't addressing the known risks of firearms in increasing the risk of accidents and suicides. You are also correct that I personally live in a "normal" country as I suspect the vast majority of posters on this Forum do. I mentioned that if your risk of stranger murder and/or terrorism is so high to outweigh the known risk to the owner of gun possession, then (and only then) should you use safety as your reason for gun ownership. Naturally there are numerous non safety reasons, but we're not discussing those here. You are correct that regardless of where you live you "need to be prepared for" the possibility of crime, but it is an error to suppose that the only or best way to prepare is by acquiring an instrument that has a higher statistical chance of harming your family than protecting you.
I also would like to live in a world where no guns are needed, in a totally gun free world, but sadly this is not that world. I do not deny that there may be a problem with the possession of a firearm, just as a kitchen knife or car is responsible for many accidents, but I cannot understand how this could be a bigger problem than that the victims of a crime or terrorist attack do not have an effective means to defend themselves. Of course there are people who shouldn't hold gun, because they are mentally unstable or unfit. But I am not talking about them, but about responsible, innocent law-abiding citizens whose rights to effective self-defense are being violated in many countries, and who would never obtain a weapon from illegal sources like criminals and terrorists do.

SP
Uummm, okay, lots of people didn't take statistics. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, 24,000. Gun related homicides are about 15,000, but about 2,200 are killed by their spouse. About 500 die of gun related accidents. So 26,700 gun deaths of family members of gun owners per year or about 8 per 100,000 population. Only one third of US households own guns so the risk is 24 per 100,000 in gun owning households.

So in order for a gun to have a chance of preventing your death at a higher chance than causing one in your family, you would have to live where the murder rate was higher than 24 per 100,000 assuming you were 100% effective at preventing your murder. Obviously, that would be a gross overestimation of the ability of the abilities of gun owners. Let's be generous and say 25% of murders could be prevented by owning a gun. In that case you would have to live where the murder rate was 96 per 100,000

The US has a murder rate overall of 4.9. It is higher in big cities. St Louis is the highest in the US at 69, so it doesn't even make sense there. Worldwide is different as you pointed out. Tijuana, Mexico has 138 per 100,000, others that qualify would Acapulco and Caracas, Venezuela. I assume you don't live in any of those cities.
Quite true, the victims whose lives are under direct threat of crime and terror, do not care about the statistics indeed. When your life at the stake you don't bother with statistic. But even if you're right about not owning firearms causes less trouble than owning gun in mass scale, you are still at error on the other hand. If you want to commit a suicide or kill your spouse it can be perfectly implemented with no gun involved, with nylon bag, knife, hammer, and with so many stuffs you can acquire legally with no permission needed, but are perfectly suitable for killing. If you really want to murder someone, having no gun won't prevent you doing so. For example the former-Soviet region is totally gun free regarding for civilians, buy the suicide and homicide rate are five times higher than anywhere in the West. In the CIS countries, in Eastern-Europe or Central-Asia the vast majority of domestic violence are committed with no firearm involved.

Switzerland and Israel on the other hand are relatively safe from legally owned guns. The gun alone don't make anyone criminal. So the gun is only one tool of many in hands of criminals for committing homicide, but for the victims the only efficient tool to protect their lives, since criminals are already advantaged by default. If the fragile woman is attacked by a three times higher and heavier male I don't see how to balance the odds without allowing the victim to be armed. And you can't answer that either.

But the fundamental issue is still untouched. Why responsible, innocent, law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves against criminals and terrorists with firearm if it's necessary? I repeat, I'm not talking about mentally degenerated, emotionally unstable people, who shouldn't own gun indeed, and who obviously contribute to negative statistics.

So as you can see, every case is unique which must be handled individually and independently, regardless of any statistics. So many people shouldn't hold gun as I said, but this cannot be influenced by that so many people would desperately need effective self-defense. Because every case is unique without affecting each other in vast majority of cases.

Tijuana, Mexico, well, I don't know how good this example. I didn't see statistic with crime related to legally owned guns (not criminal or drug cartel owned weapons). I tend to agree with you in that so many people shouldn't hold gun even legally, but again, the best protection or even the only one effective defense against this either is letting the guns fall into proper hands, (victims, and body guards, amateurs and professionals with good intentions).

One more thing to consider, everyone has a choice to select their partner. Everyone can select people whom they want hangling with. But no one can choose their random murderer.

It was a bit philosophical, but go ahead with statistics, the collective judgement on cases which not relating each other can be informative too especially after growing up in communist country, in a totally gun free zone, where the crime, prostitustion, ethnic tension skyrocketed. But we celebrated a 0% official crime rate. Of course the USA is a whole different matter, but the firearms and crime relation might be different in Alaska and Detroit. I suppose in neither place you can afford hanging with no gun.

No problem can be solved with making potential victims even more vulnerable.

SP
It seems like we understand each other pretty well. Just one thing, you can attempt suicide in many ways, but there is no denying that guns are much, much more successful than any other method, hence why guns lead to more suicide deaths.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 545
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Scott wrote: April 13th, 2021, 10:37 pm Recently, Daunte Wright was added to a list of names that include, among many others, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Ronell Foster, Walter Scott, Willie McCoy, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Stephon Clark, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd.

One police officer named Ryan McMahon shot and killed two of the people on the above list, about one year apart. McMahon wasn't criminally charged with either killing, but after the second killing he was fired for "engaging in unsafe conduct and neglect for basic firearm safety" (source).

Even an unarmed pacifist can be shot to death by police, especially considered the majority of inmates in the United States are only charged with nonviolent crimes, such as marijuana possession, consensual adult prostitution, or pacifistic tax protesting.

Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Dr. King was a repeat criminal. One could even argue that Dr. Martin Luther King was a career criminal.

Arnold Abbott was repeatedly arrested for illegally feeding the homeless. Had Arnold Abbott not been elderly and white, or had he been more willing and able to run away when the police came to nab him for illegally feeding the homeless, perhaps he would have been shot during his arrest.

Of course, one does not need to even commit a crime to to be stopped by police and potentially shot to death. For instance, merely the alleged smell of marijuana is enough of a legal basis to forceably detain a suspect with probable cause, an altercation can quickly turn deadly for even an unarmed innocent suspect.

I absolutely don't mean to pick on police. If I have a problem with police at all, it is simply that they are human. If I even have a problem, my problem isn't with police but rather with humans. For more on the that, you can read my topic Man is Not Fit to Govern Man, or my first reply in the topic Covid and Flu highlight the difficulty of placing an economic value on human lives. The tl;dr is this: Humans are irrational. Humans also all tend to display varying degrees of selfishness and addiction. I believe no human is perfectly unselfish, and I believe every human is on the addiction spectrum. Money and power are especially enticing addictions. Some would say money and power corrupt, but I think that gives too much credit to the natural state of humans, in that a selfish power-hungry money-addicted human is not corrupted but totally normal and uncorrupted, and that's okay. As with anything, it is what it is. A government that violently robs the hard working taxpayers by the millions, billions, or trillions to sneak money into the hands of wealthy special interests is not corrupted; it is doing what governments always do, and always have done for thousands of years. It is what it is.

I have no strong opinions about gun control, for a few reasons, which include:

1. The word 'guns' is very vague. My opinion regarding someone with a functioning 18th century musket is very different than my opinion regarding someone having a rocket launcher with a mini-nuke capable of blowing up an entire football stadium. One benchmark I would recommend using to measure and contrast the danger of various kinds of guns or other weapons would be to statistically compare each to the danger of the average car, a process that could easily be delegated to private insurance companies that can nail it down so well that the color of a car might affect your liability insurance by a few dollars per month one way or the other. If I had to bet, I would bet pink guns would be statistically the safest color of guns. Humans are an interesting bunch, indeed.

2. I am much more interested in the fairness and equality of gun laws than what the laws happen to be in a given town, state, or country. For very cliché instance, when the Nazis gained power in Germany they systemically disarmed Jewish people and certain other "unreliable" groups (source) but actually loosened gun laws for Nazi party members and the military. That kind of inequality is what would concern me the most. In this way, we can look at guns like we might look at anything such as marijuana, alcohol, cyanide, automobiles, access to voting, college educations, or bank accounts. We can look at it like we might look at Wall Street getting away with market manipulation and short squeezes but retailer investors getting unequal treatment if they organize a short squeeze, which surely wouldn't be fair.

3. When it comes to my mostly impotent support or opposition to any given law, I am less interested in what the law is and more interested in whether it represents (1) localism and the freedom that is self-government or (2) big expensive national, federal, or global governments that extremely centralize power over unimaginably vast lands into the hands of very few privileged rich humans via large-scale non-defensive violence. Such centralization hinders the choice and beautiful diversity that otherwise naturally emerge. For instance, if some small town government or condo community governing board bans marijuana or alcohol, I really don't care, and I don't see it as a noteworthy infringement of anyone's political freedom. But if a few millionaires or billionaires at the UN suddenly ban alcohol or marijuana across the entire Earth at the behest of some rich lobbyists, that would be extremely disturbing to me, regardless of whether the globally banned thing is alcohol or marijuana or public nudity or any number of countless things that a small local group of people might understandably ban at a very local level. If someone hates motorcycles or small pistols or loud noises after 10pm, I am more than happy for them to have the option of moving to a town that bans those things. If someone loves motorcycles or pistols or loud noises at night, I am more than happy for them to have the option to move to a town or state that allows those things. I'd be disappointed to see either banned across the whole Earth. Self-government is the antitheses of big expensive non-defensively violent national or global governments.

With that said, I feel that whatever the gun laws happen to be at any given local, state, national, federal, or global level, I strongly prefer that those gun laws are applied equally to citizens as well as police and other government agents in that jurisdiction.

I share the view of the vast majority of the respondents to my recent totally unscientific Twitter poll about distrusting the government. Namely, I don't find humans trustworthy in general, but I have even less trust for big governments like the U.S. federal government. Humans have their problems individually, but mobs of humans are even worse.

The U.S. federal budget for the 2020 fiscal year was set at $4.79 trillion. Humans tend to be irrational and selfish even when those traits aren't being fertilized by $4.79 trillion dollars of taxpayer money taken from taxpayers at the threat of violence, but with that $4.79 trillion dollar fertilization I cannot even imagine the level of self-serving shady tyranny happening in the dealings between the various millionaires and billionaires in Washington, including not only the many millionaires in Congress but the paid lobbyists and corporate cronies. Humans are worse around money than cats around catnip.
I don't know any cop but I do believe to know some people.

I grew up in school befriending a guy who went on to become a cop and so, I don't know him anymore.

I also know about people who should not have guns. My view about guns is that I am unconcerned by them so long as they aren't pointed at me, or people I care about.

I am unfortunately uncertain about which option here is less likely to lead to a gun being pointed at me. I do know however, that the more there are guns freely roaming in a society suggests that my chances of being aimed at are likely increasing as well.

No more gun weapons please. Police, given their resources should be able to do their jobs without weapons, but that takes courage of course, so it may not be possible. I don't know. I don't know cops.
Be the machine that speaks against machines
ernestm
Posts: 138
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by ernestm »

Well frankly it seems to me the entire argument is misdirected. As to what people 'want,' there is what we 'can do' and what we 'should do.' What we can do is defined by rights in law, and is mistaken for what we should do. What we should do is avoid lethal self defense if we are able to, that is, instead of asking what we 'want,' we should be seeking nonlethal mechanisms to protect ourselves, and only people who are too incapacitated for any reason to use non-lethal self defense should consider guns and weaponry as what they 'want.' That is a proper statement of ethics with regards to the 'desire' for guns, that is, we SHOULD desire guns only if nothing else at all is a possible means of protecting ourselves.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 406
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Astro Cat »

I really wish there were just a better way to weed out bad actor cops. There are so many of them that it has irrevocably stained the idea of cops as being the "good guys" to a lot of people.

Otherwise, I answered both: this is under the assumption that the citizens in question do have to go through some rigorous process to weed out bad actors there, too.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6549
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by LuckyR »

Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:15 pm I really wish there were just a better way to weed out bad actor cops. There are so many of them that it has irrevocably stained the idea of cops as being the "good guys" to a lot of people.

Otherwise, I answered both: this is under the assumption that the citizens in question do have to go through some rigorous process to weed out bad actors there, too.
No one expects all members of any group to be above average. What makes the police different from most other groups is the denial by the above average cops that the incompetent cops are, in fact, incompetent.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 406
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Astro Cat »

LuckyR wrote: June 30th, 2022, 3:16 am
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:15 pm I really wish there were just a better way to weed out bad actor cops. There are so many of them that it has irrevocably stained the idea of cops as being the "good guys" to a lot of people.

Otherwise, I answered both: this is under the assumption that the citizens in question do have to go through some rigorous process to weed out bad actors there, too.
No one expects all members of any group to be above average. What makes the police different from most other groups is the denial by the above average cops that the incompetent cops are, in fact, incompetent.
Yeah. Some accountability and some action (anything, and not as much pushing back against criticism to the point of appearing petulant or corrupt) would go a long way. If at the height of everything that's been going on we started seeing departments saying "ok you know what? There is a problem, we are going to do ________ with our training programs, we're going to retrain people, we're going to let people go beneath what our standards need to be," etc., there would be a lot less outright disillusionment with policing as an institution.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6549
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by LuckyR »

Astro Cat wrote: June 30th, 2022, 3:43 am
LuckyR wrote: June 30th, 2022, 3:16 am
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:15 pm I really wish there were just a better way to weed out bad actor cops. There are so many of them that it has irrevocably stained the idea of cops as being the "good guys" to a lot of people.

Otherwise, I answered both: this is under the assumption that the citizens in question do have to go through some rigorous process to weed out bad actors there, too.
No one expects all members of any group to be above average. What makes the police different from most other groups is the denial by the above average cops that the incompetent cops are, in fact, incompetent.
Yeah. Some accountability and some action (anything, and not as much pushing back against criticism to the point of appearing petulant or corrupt) would go a long way. If at the height of everything that's been going on we started seeing departments saying "ok you know what? There is a problem, we are going to do ________ with our training programs, we're going to retrain people, we're going to let people go beneath what our standards need to be," etc., there would be a lot less outright disillusionment with policing as an institution.
Well, that is happening more than in the past (never). The trend is encouraging, which would be okay if folks weren't literally dying as this process of change was winding along it's way.
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021