Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
The Second Amendment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gene2memE" data-source="post: 75935521" data-attributes="member: 341130"><p>Depends on the circumstances.</p><p></p><p>I'll preface this by saying from the outset that I'm not a fan of US gun laws, nor the adversarial approach to policing some US law enforcement agencies appear to take. </p><p></p><p>However, with a widely armed population and a very high rate of gun violence in the US, policing has taken on certain characteristics. One of those is the assumption that anyone wielding a gun intends to use it. This is not an unjustified assumption - there's plenty of evidence to support it - but applying it as a blanket assumption is not a good practice, as it leads to some 'shoot first, ask questions later' incidents. </p><p></p><p>For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved. Similar examples could be raised for police shooting individuals who were seeking to run away. </p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, as with most things, there's a trade off. If you teach your officers to respond by not assuming someone bearing a gun - or even a fake gun- is going to use it, one day pretty soon a cop is going to get killed. </p><p></p><p>Police have to prioritize their own safety, I'm not going to disagree there. The questions are: where does the risk/reward line lie when it comes to the tradeoff between the lives of the public and the police?; and how do you change the approach of US law enforcement in a way that doesn't involve getting a bunch more cops shot?</p><p></p><p>Personally, my reading of history is that the Second Amendment was constructed as a doctrine for the defense of the nation against a foreign power (as the US initially didn't have much truck with standing armies), rather than a doctrine of individual access to firearms. That meaning changed in common and legal interpretation through the latter third of the 20th century, to mean (close to) unfettered personal firearms use, which was codified in DC vs Heller.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gene2memE, post: 75935521, member: 341130"] Depends on the circumstances. I'll preface this by saying from the outset that I'm not a fan of US gun laws, nor the adversarial approach to policing some US law enforcement agencies appear to take. However, with a widely armed population and a very high rate of gun violence in the US, policing has taken on certain characteristics. One of those is the assumption that anyone wielding a gun intends to use it. This is not an unjustified assumption - there's plenty of evidence to support it - but applying it as a blanket assumption is not a good practice, as it leads to some 'shoot first, ask questions later' incidents. For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved. Similar examples could be raised for police shooting individuals who were seeking to run away. Unfortunately, as with most things, there's a trade off. If you teach your officers to respond by not assuming someone bearing a gun - or even a fake gun- is going to use it, one day pretty soon a cop is going to get killed. Police have to prioritize their own safety, I'm not going to disagree there. The questions are: where does the risk/reward line lie when it comes to the tradeoff between the lives of the public and the police?; and how do you change the approach of US law enforcement in a way that doesn't involve getting a bunch more cops shot? Personally, my reading of history is that the Second Amendment was constructed as a doctrine for the defense of the nation against a foreign power (as the US initially didn't have much truck with standing armies), rather than a doctrine of individual access to firearms. That meaning changed in common and legal interpretation through the latter third of the 20th century, to mean (close to) unfettered personal firearms use, which was codified in DC vs Heller. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
The Second Amendment
Top
Bottom