I’d laugh at this…except it’s true. Which just makes it sad.
It neatly exposes the complete failure of imagination of the people who buy guns to “protect themselves”.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes is an old Latin tag (“Who will guard the guardians”). But even more problematic is “who will protect us from the self-appointed protectors?”
Is it ironic that there is a post mocking people who chose to make their safety their own responsibility while there is another post bemoaning an ever more militarized and threatening police force? SWAT team pose in home after raid That’s a lot of their/there there so sorry about the alliteration.
Become one, protect yourself, balance it out.
You might consider that their may be other solutions to the militarization of the police, besides arming yourself against them.
The implication that it is necessary to carry a gun to be responsible for your own safety, or event that that is a good way to approach the problem, is begging the question.
This is true but why take personal defense off the table when discussing how to best ensure the safety of yourself and your family?
It could be funny - but it happens all the time that panic ensues when a gun is seen in public. It happened in Ann Arbor. An open-carry activist brought a gun to a school play, and would have gone unnoticed had someone else at the event not made a big deal about it, similar to the depiction in the second panel above.
Of course as others have pointed out, this very site plays into the gun lobby’s hands when it glorifies guns and violence through positive reviews of toys, movies and other cultural sightings. The global culture of violence is so pervasive it is impossible not to see or hear about guns, or to get caught up in re-publishing inaccurate accountings of same. How we react to these sightings will determine if we are able to change the world for the better.
Under English law, carrying a gun or a knife openly in public comes under the offence of provoking fear or threat of violence.
It’s Yawn worthy where I hail from. It’s not uncommon for people to carry two or three knives and a pistol of some sort. I think flaunting it in a brazen fashion such as those that wander around with M4s in wall-mart is poor taste and should be admonished by other carriers. though on the flip side I think its odd that we fear people who display weapons, more than those who conceal them.
Right, because arming yourself against a SWAT team is clearly the best way to avoid getting shot by that SWAT team.
The militarization of local police forces is not going to be mitigated by citizens arming themselves, it is going to have the opposite effect.
I’m not saying you should up arm to protect yourself against the police. I’m saying if you don’t trust individuals to protect people and you also don’t trust the authorities to protect people. Then who is responsible for peoples protection?
Sentrygun. Remote controlled from a safe room, or perhaps fully autonomous.
the point is, there’s a lot less cause to worry when access to guns is limited, and well regulated. the more awash we are in guns, the more protection people feel they need. it’s mutually-assured destruction on the neighborhood scale.
A police force is necessary to have a civilized society, but they are still human, and should be subject to some kind of oversight on behalf of the public. We have to trust the police to a certain extent, and it’s better than blindly trusting random armed citizens who aren’t tasked with enforcing laws or safety (and aren’t subject to public oversight.)
The fact that I don’t like how police forces have become overly militarized does not mean I am opposed to the police. It’s a question of degree, as well as intelligent budgeting-- do local cops really need military gear? I am opposed to the military-industrial complex selling gear to local police forces at taxpayer expense, only to have that equipment then be used on the taxpayer, often in situations where it isn’t even necessary.
There will be 400 million guns in the hands of private citizens by the first quarter of next year, so I’m not sure that we can do much about the awash in guns part. But there is little doubt that when people feel threatened they do something to make themselves feel safer, whether that’s buying a gun, security system, taking a self defense class, or demanding that the government do something.
sure we can. we can restrict future gun sales. we can increase licensing restrictions. we can require insurance. we restrict off-season shooting to ranges. require certain types of guns be kept at ranges. stop open carry. and, that’s just off the cuff.
i’m sure people much smarter than me have more practical ideas. the first step is simply acknowledging we’re not helpless. we don’t have to let the past define our future.
yes! the key is not just going by what “feels” safe.
more guns mean more lethal outcomes due to accident, suicide, domestic violence, gang violence, and on and on.
i don’t know if limiting guns would slow mass shootings or not, but in general, fewer guns are factually better than more.
And by “personal defense”, is assume you mean a gun, since that’s what this thread is about. The best reason for taking it off the table, is the fact that if you have a gun in a home, it’s more likely to be used against a member of the household, or family acquaintance, than it is against any intruder. Homes with guns are far more likely to have suicide attempts that end with a fatality, than homes without a gun.
So to sum up, the reason for taking it off the table, is because a gun in the home makes you, and everyone in the home, less safe, not more safe.
A heavily armed populace doesn’t lead to a less militarized police force. It leads to a MORE militarized police force, because they work under the assumption that any confrontation could erupt into a firefight. It’s an arms race.