mass shooting and police militarization

[coredumped]

And damnit, I was avoiding the orlando-shooting thread because I know my opinion is in the minority here. This site is most far left, where I'm a libertarian, so maybe we should get back on topic.

No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.

[Adam White]

No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.

I actually agree with you on that.

[Adam White]

Whatever, man. I wasn't saying that. I just think your comment was particularly crass.

Well I didn't think I was, nor do I mean to be, but really, but it's no less compassionate than "let's ban guns" that the left is touting. This forum (ok, maybe not this thread) usually has a better conversation than most of the internet, and I like to think I contribute to that, even if I was sarcastic at the end there

I'm not saying we should allow people to carry guns because I'm the CEO of smith and wesson, I'm saying it because I believe it would help. I don't want to see innocent people die. Ever. There's a reason why most of these idiots go after gun free zones.

Just like you believe banning guns would save lives. We obviously disagree, but don't think that I'm pushing an agenda or anything like that. I just want people to defend themselves, because clearly, they could not in this case. And what he did was already illegal.

Basically, you have the left trying to ban guns (for citizens, not their security guards, police, etc) and the right trying to ban a whole religious group of people. It's insane.

There is no 100% solution, but I don't think banning people or things is a solution at all. It's as effective as the war on drugs.

Yeah, sorry about the self-righteous indignation.

It's clear we don't agree on guns. So we're not likely to really convince each other 

[coredumped]

It's clear we don't agree on guns. So we're not likely to really convince each other 

Agreed, but the debate was good

On a related note, and I'm not speaking at all for the LGBT community, but it looks like some percentage of them agree with me:
"Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting"
http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/

[Adam White]

It's clear we don't agree on guns. So we're not likely to really convince each other 

Agreed, but the debate was good

On a related note, and I'm not speaking at all for the LGBT community, but it looks like some percentage of them agree with me:
"Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting"
http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/

touché

[AKIRA]

In an effort to steer the conversation away from ya'lls already well established belief about guns and back to the topic at hand....

No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.

I actually agree with you on that.

The problem exists that some people do need to be policed, such as the Orlando shooter, and as it has been shown, standard equipment does not do the job.  You can idealize the concept of Peace officers all you want, but this incident was not the place for a peaceful response.  I know that libertarians in particular have a very skeptical view of all things police, but there is the grave danger of sticking your head in the sand because strict political ideology demands ideals above reason.  I have heard many libertarians (and liberals) complain incessantly about police have "tanks" (in reality unarmed Bearcats and MRAPs), but without such, how many more would have had to die in Orlando/   

How do you deny LEOs the specialized equipment/tactics and still reasonable expect them to handle problems such as the Orlando shooter?

I understand that both people on both sides of the political spectrum bristle at the specter, real or imaged, of a police state, but these events are not going to stop.  The casualty rate of this attack sets a new, unprecedented standard, which will further inspire evil people to such depths. 

[AKIRA]

In reference to people arming themselves for protection against such...  it is probably not by blind chance that the shooter choose to attack a club, as it is illegal to carry concealed in a bar, even if licensed. 

[The_Choose_1]

Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this, Despite it just happening:

Those poor people in the club had no chance.

I can't vouch for what liberals do or don't get, but I know I feel a lot safer knowing I am not surrounded by armed idiots.

You live in London Gun Control Capital of the UK!

[Adam White]

In reference to people arming themselves for protection against such...  it is probably not by blind chance that the shooter choose to attack a club, as it is illegal to carry concealed in a bar, even if licensed.

I don't know why he chose a club. But if I were a betting man, I'd assume he chose for other, more personal reasons.

[Adam White]

In an effort to steer the conversation away from ya'lls already well established belief about guns and back to the topic at hand....

No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.

I actually agree with you on that.

The problem exists that some people do need to be policed, such as the Orlando shooter, and as it has been shown, standard equipment does not do the job.  You can idealize the concept of Peace officers all you want, but this incident was not the place for a peaceful response.  I know that libertarians in particular have a very skeptical view of all things police, but there is the grave danger of sticking your head in the sand because strict political ideology demands ideals above reason.  I have heard many libertarians (and liberals) complain incessantly about police have "tanks" (in reality unarmed Bearcats and MRAPs), but without such, how many more would have had to die in Orlando/   

How do you deny LEOs the specialized equipment/tactics and still reasonable expect them to handle problems such as the Orlando shooter?

I understand that both people on both sides of the political spectrum bristle at the specter, real or imaged, of a police state, but these events are not going to stop.  The casualty rate of this attack sets a new, unprecedented standard, which will further inspire evil people to such depths.

Hello Akira

I'm going to step out of the debate - you and I went round the houses on this quite some time ago and I don't really want to start that whole discussion back up. I got sucked into this thread - but not really on the correct topic!

[AKIRA]

In an effort to steer the conversation away from ya'lls already well established belief about guns and back to the topic at hand....

No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.

I actually agree with you on that.

The problem exists that some people do need to be policed, such as the Orlando shooter, and as it has been shown, standard equipment does not do the job.  You can idealize the concept of Peace officers all you want, but this incident was not the place for a peaceful response.  I know that libertarians in particular have a very skeptical view of all things police, but there is the grave danger of sticking your head in the sand because strict political ideology demands ideals above reason.  I have heard many libertarians (and liberals) complain incessantly about police have "tanks" (in reality unarmed Bearcats and MRAPs), but without such, how many more would have had to die in Orlando/   

How do you deny LEOs the specialized equipment/tactics and still reasonable expect them to handle problems such as the Orlando shooter?

I understand that both people on both sides of the political spectrum bristle at the specter, real or imaged, of a police state, but these events are not going to stop.  The casualty rate of this attack sets a new, unprecedented standard, which will further inspire evil people to such depths.

Hello Akira

I'm going to step out of the debate - you and I went round the houses on this quite some time ago and I don't really want to start that whole discussion back up. I got sucked into this thread - but not really on the correct topic!

Fair enough.  It is a difficult topic without a comfortable answer for anyone...

[coredumped]

London, where guns are banned and where a politician just got shot?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jo-cox-british-lawmaker-shot-stabbed-yorkshire-reports-n593581

I just don't see a reason the police need military equipment, and it is military equipment. The shooter didn't need policing, he needed help or imprisonment. The police have too many toys and are far too eager to use them. Ask poor black communities.

There was a great segment on 60 minutes just last week in about a police department in Maine (I think) where they stopped arresting people for meth and instead gave them help. It has been a huge success, and costs less money.

[finehoe]

From the center-right publication The Economist:

Data suggest guns do in fact kill people

Then there's the related argument that people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors carrying firearms, and that if you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals will have guns. That may be valid in the abstract. In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. Not much of a risk for the criminal, it seems. Perhaps that was because too few Americans own guns or carry them on their persons to have a substantial effect, but it's hard to imagine driving those numbers up much higher; Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten? Is this even possible, let alone desirable?

None of this should be particularly surprising. We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control

[coredumped]

Stephen, thanks for the compliment, and insult to Bill O'Reilly! That guy scares me.

Perhaps far left is too extreme, but this board tends to the left, IMO. If I recall, there was a political poll here a few years ago and I think it was mainly liberal as the response.

I know you yourself used to identify as a Republican, if you don't mind me asking, where do you consider yourself now?

[finehoe]

Orlando Police Response Questioned

The Orlando SWAT team commander who led the final assault that brought an end to Sunday’s massacre at a gay nightclub is defending the decision to wait nearly three hours after the initial shooting before breaching the club’s wall.

“Initially it was an active shooter,” Capt. Mark Canty told Yahoo News Global Anchor Katie Couric on Thursday. “Once the shooting stopped, it became a barricaded gunman. And our officers acted accordingly — they surrounded it, they contained it, and we looked for ways to get the hostages out.”

Several experts have said the delay may have contributed to the death toll.

“Action beats inaction 100 percent of the time,” Chris Grollnek, an active-shooter expert and a retired police officer and SWAT team member, told the Associated Press. “When we see SWAT teams respond and not making entry [it] creates victims. Period. End of story.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-swat-captain-pulse-hostages-000000292.html