Nice thought.
In practice, I expect what you’d get is the cops backing off a bit before calling in the airstrike. Along with heavier use of MRAPs etc.
Although plenty of them are thoroughly blameworthy, the street cops are not the source of the problem, and scaring a few of them isn’t going to sort it. The relevant authority is higher up the chain.
I think of it like this. I am not there to protect you, I am living my life. If I have to protect myself then I will. But going out looking for a fight is childish.
Arming yourself openly or otherwise will do nothing to truly help or hurt militarized police. So why should it matter?
As long as I am not hurting you why should I be restricted? Why do we have to kindergarten everything? If one person can handle such and such thing then no one should.
By that logic no one should be allowed do just about anything, because there is always that one fuck up. Should we not shower, use knives, drive, heal ourselves with whatever, drink coffee, go to church, because someone else can’t deal with it properly.
Grow up. Let people take responsibility for themselves. You can not prevent stupidity.
the nra actively lobbies against the government collecting hard numbers. it seems only logical to assume they know the numbers are against them.
i can see how a cartoon like this must feel to you. keep in mind it was the head of the nra who said “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
the fantasy of some person saving the day with a gun ( by killing another human being! ) is different then the reality of people who want the same parental rights, hospital rights, granted to other committed couples.
Just out of curiosity, how many of them are black or Middle-East looking?
It seems to have strong parallels to the Trayvon Martin case.
That is not entirely besides the point. It takes a lot more today to upset a sufficient number of people strongly enough that we see actual change to the system.
In the 60’s, four students being shot by the National Guard was more than enough to do that. Right now, I suspect that a fleet of drones carpet bombing 100+ civilians on American soil might be enough to motivate people. Maybe.
Although plenty of them are thoroughly blameworthy, the street cops are not the source of the problem, and scaring a few of them isn’t going to sort it. The relevant authority is higher up the chain.
Push the good ones just far enough to make them question what they’re doing. When one or two of them are driven to say “no, this isn’t right”, it does have the power to start a chain reaction.
Is that a representative event or an outlier? If the latter, why does the comic portray it as the former?
I don’t think it is a representative event, but the situation as described is held up as admirable by a number of people including Republican nomination candidates, and the fuhrer Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA will tell anybody who will listen that the solution to bad guys with guns is to arm just about everybody. So demonstrating the fallacy in comic form is legitimate, because the people who subscribe to the fallacy have platforms.
As I keep pointing out in defending the drafters of the Constitution, who were far from stupid, there is that “well regulated militia” thing which if interpreted as most people outside the US would interpret it, would suggest you leave armed response to the army or the police, according to the nature of the threat. [corrected to give proper name and job title for the leader of the NRA]
That’s the slip of the day! Perhaps you mean “furor”?
It’s the German for leader (OK without the umlaut and the capital), which is a pretty literal translation of “executive vice president.” But I will change it for you.
It also has certain historical references. Could it count as Godwinning the thread?
Mike Godwin’s law says that if a thread goes on long enough eventually something will be compared to the Nazis. It does not say that the comparison is invalid.
The NRA tries to influence the governments of foreign countries. It has tried to defund support for international treaties. It spends money on recalling democratically elected politicians. It is funded partly by arms manufacturers. In other words, it is a profoundly anti-democratic political movement with a 100% armed membership which defines its politics around the ownership and use of weapons. Honestly, it is difficult not to compare it to the Nazis.
No, that’s what I was asking: did you mean the German word, or had you misspelled an English word that worked in that sentence, or were you playing on the words and thus meant BOTH simultaneously?
Now I understand!
Or… here’s a thought; instead of escalating the situation, how about prosecuting the officer who instigates violence in the first place. Make the police officers actually accountable.
Well, that would be the first choice of a civilized society. I am particularly concerned, if not convinced, that we may no longer be one.
Were we ever one, though? Aren’t things actually getting mostly better? We could be close to civilized, maybe, one day…
Zimmerman was acquitted. While neither you nor I can say for certain what happened that night, it appears those presented with the evidence in the case believed that shooting to be justified.
I already said you can find some examples of over zealous “good guys with guns”. They are so few and far between compared to the “real” problem I am not sure why we are wasting time satirizing it. Especially when it appears guns do stop way more crimes than there are crimes by good intention but still wrong gun owners. But hey, its easier to poke fun for few laughs than address the real problem. It also fits some peoples’ agenda to make “regular” gun owners out to all be unstable nuts.
Data?
(Hopefully without shenanigans this time!)
