|
Post by redchimera on Apr 20, 2024 4:58:35 GMT -5
The crime solving success rate was brought up by yourself so I don't feel it's a strawman. But we can replace the words "has a low 'crime solving' success rate" with "are not fit for purpose" and the point still stands. Qualitatively better oversight is a better replacement to poor oversight. not no oversight.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 20, 2024 5:17:23 GMT -5
The crime solving success rate was brought up by yourself so I don't feel it's a strawman. But we can replace the words "has a low 'crime solving' success rate" with "are not fit for purpose" and the point still stands. Qualitatively better oversight is a better replacement to poor oversight. not no oversight. It's a straw man because you've presented the low success rate as my sole argument for abolishing the police entirely rather than reforming them. The actual argument is that cops are actively harmful to society, not merely less useful than I want them to be. Their ineffectiveness is merely one part of that, a lack of positive to balance against the overwhelming harm they cause. To give you an analogy: cops are not a fire department that doesn't arrive in time to save your house from burning down, they're a fire department that shows up with a tanker truck full of gasoline and lights the entire neighborhood on fire because arson is fun.
And, again, better oversight is wishful thinking in the US. This is not "a few bad apples" that can be weeded out by better oversight. Cops are irredeemably and institutionally corrupt, at every level of their existence, and actively resist all attempts at oversight with near-total unity and the backing of the most powerful union in the US. Before any meaningful reform can happen the entire system must be dismantled and stripped of that power. Otherwise oversight means nothing more than "we have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" and no meaningful change will ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by easye on May 8, 2024 9:38:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on May 8, 2024 10:28:54 GMT -5
Because what makes things safer for everyone, is for there to be a gun battle on the premises.
Fucking stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on May 8, 2024 15:17:50 GMT -5
Because what makes things safer for everyone, is for there to be a gun battle on the premises. Fucking stupid. If someone with ill intent comes to shoot up a school, everyone there is already in a gun battle on the premises. It's just a question of whether or not they have an effective means of fighting back. Being unarmed and at the mercy of an armed assailant who is trying to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible is in no way the safer option in that scenario.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 331
|
Post by skyth on May 8, 2024 17:09:58 GMT -5
That is so wrong, it borders on being a lie.
To use your gun you have to put yourself in more danger. More bullets flying around means more chance of unintended targets being hit. I don't think the walls in a school will stop a missed shot.
Plus, having a gun makes you a target for the police when they show up, so you are putting yourself more into danger.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on May 8, 2024 17:22:03 GMT -5
That is so wrong, it borders on being a lie. To use your gun you have to put yourself in more danger. More bullets flying around means more chance of unintended targets being hit. I don't think the walls in a school will stop a missed shot. Plus, having a gun makes you a target for the police when they show up, so you are putting yourself more into danger. It's not wrong, and it's not even close to being a lie. That's pretty obnoxious to even suggest, really. If you disagree, fine, but that doesn't make it a lie. In that situation there are already bullets flying around all over the place. What do you think the police are going to do when they show up if someone else hasn't already stopped the shooter? There are ways to deal with responding police that don't result in a non-uniformed armed responder getting shot. In regards to stopping a shot, it all depends on the wall and the type of round being fired. The alternative is essentially allowing the shooter to have free rein to inflict the maximum amount of mayhem until the police show up to deal with it (and based on the response to Uvalde, it's not a guarantee they will even deal with it appropriately when they do arrive, although I grant that's not the norm). That's not a better, or safer option.
|
|