Don’t bring me into this guns rights shit lol. I’m not from the US.
But still, your reasoning is all over the place. Now the government isn’t being tyrannical and the civilians are the ones doing the violence, and you’re saying the police, whom are also there to maintain order and protect other civilians, are bringing this on themselves by using more advanced weapons and protective gear to protect themselves so they can do their duties?
What is this? Victim shaming?
This analogy is too flawed with too many variables to be taken into consideration to be used here.
If I were to use it in a way to prove my point, it wouldn’t be fair to you.
Ha! Big weapons have always been available to the public here (you’re right separate topic, I can’t help myself sometimes). But, there is a correlation between police becoming militarized with tech and tactics, followed by an increase in violent encounters.
I think it is for the same reason as my bouncer analogy.
But would you have the same stance if the police were armed with standard weapons BUT they were going batshit on the crowd and the civilians armed with the advanced weapons were able to prevent this by subduing them with such weapons?
NOTE:
NORMAL POLICE. Not even SWAT.
And to make my stance clear, I think an armed population being able to fight a tyrannical government on a macro level is a joke and I’ve expressed this view several times in other threads.
Actually, I think I even wrote something similar in this thread somewhere above.
So in your analogy the cops would be a small aggressive bouncer, and the protestors would be the big calm bouncer? Of course i would prefer the big calm bouncer. I have no real problem with cops having access to the best equipment available. But, human nature is a bitch, and most people can’t help themselves from quickly resorting to that big advantage.
I am in favor of less violence. Militarizing police forces correlates to those police forces having an increase in violent encounters… IMO because they feel empowered to be more aggressive and use the new tools they bought/learned.
Yeah, but our guerilla force could be really, really annoying to deal with. More of less taliban/Al Queda-like. We’d never prevent/win anything, but dame if we wouldnt be a PITA.
Could it be related to an increase in terrorism and mass shootings?
No, your bouncer analogy doesn’t even fit because people aren’t there to attack bouncers, nor is there any movement against “bouncer brutality”. I also don’t even want to go further into it because it would be redundant since you’ve only considered one possible scenario.
Terrorism and mass shootings are drops in the large bucket of violence in america.
Minus the willingness to die.
And militarized police are not patrolling the streets.
You’d end up with people wanting the government to enact legislation to supress them in reality.
I think its a pretty apt analogy for what we are talking about. What scenarios haven’t i considered that you have brought up for discussion?
Did I not just explain that there isn’t a movement sparked off by “bouncer brutality”?
You sure about that?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/health/fast-food-consumption-cdc-study/index.html
Cause luckily we only have to interact with bouncers if we choose to go to their bar. We dont have that luxury with cops. I fail to see how that is relevant.
Why does a movement to prevent police brutality nullify the (admittedly simplistic)
analogy?
That’s based on not believing you will die.
How is this so hard to understand?
People are protesting because of police brutality. The tiny amount of lunatics think cops are hunting down Black men and killing them.
No one goes to a bar pissed off at the bouncer, nor the fact that he’s even there.
This is just ONE flaw that has to be resolved before we even go further.
Lunatics with a global stage, like LeBron James.