Previous Post
Next Post

“What about disarming the police? What about just having them carry nightsticks and the authority to arrest? It would take a brave person to do something like that. But there are places on the face of this earth where there are police officers that don’t carry firearms. I know the right wing’s gonna think I’m crazy for saying that but if you really want change, you have to institutionally show it to the people that you want to do this.” – MSNBC host Ed Schultz [h/t RA]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • More humane to beat one guy with a stick rather than shoot 4 to 12 bystanders due to cops not being able to shoot and using guns with 12 pound triggers.

      • Don’t clump me in with NYPD. Single action trigger pull on mine is only about 5 pounds – I can rack the slide to eliminate the first DA shot if I have a second or two to spare.

        • Get a Beretta or other pistol with an exposed hammer. Much easier to cock the hammer than to rack a slide.

      • They wot be beating bad guys with sticks, they will still have guns. It’s the law abiding the will be beating.

    • Again, libturds go back to blaming the gun. The guns the cops carry don’t make them do anything corrupt. This is your typical anti style attack that somehow the gun is a mind control weapon. It’s never training, mentality, or experience. It could never be those things.

      • I’m no liberal. In fact I’m way to the right of any republican. I think some cops need to be disarmed. Just like we have some cops without cars( foot bike and horse patrols) we need some without guns. In fact corrections officers are already not armed with Firearms when inside prisons and jails.
        We should disarm traffic cops and eliminate using the traffic stop as prelude to a search. We should have traffic wardens that are like the meter readers we have today.
        Also we should have les than lethal teams to respond to in armed resistance.
        When a cop is armed he can’t disengage or lose a fight even with an unarmed suspect for fear of his gun being used on him. This is rightly how cops are trained. Having a no firearms response available to certain threats would prevent some shootings that did not near to happen.

  1. 100% agree. Ed Shultz should also be immediately deputized, kitted up appropriately and stuck at the front of the police lines in ferguson. He can then thoroughly demonstrate how fantastic an idea he has.

  2. The people in power won’t allow that. Maybe if there was civilian disarmament but even then there would still be the specialized teams to take down the “really bad guys”.

    On an uptick, if the cops couldn’t carry, then perhaps people would take their safety seriously and more people would carry. It would take away the “that’s what we have the police for” argument, and the facade that the police are there to protect the citizens. They would be shown as what that majority of them are: revenue generation for the ruling class.

    By the way, I think we should start this at the federal level.

    • We ought to start on the Secret Service level, Presidential protection detail. I like the hell out of the idea, but let’s be clear; pass this kind of law and the fruitcakes won’t find out what it’s like with unarmed cops, they’ll find out what it’s like with NO cops. Nearly every one would quit before one tour of duty. And we would not blame them, the grabbers would not understand what just happened, but would quickly learn how difficult it was going to be to get back to the office alive, so that they can change the laws back.

  3. Very, very lame idea. Every human being has the same authority over their lives, including self defense.

    Hold each individual accountable equally for any harm done to others outside of self defense. Eliminate the special privileges and immunities that allow police to hide their actions, “investigate” themselves, and excuse their crimes.

  4. The right wing has thought you’re crazy for quite a while now, Ed. You’re just proving they’re right.

  5. Disarming the police isn’t going to happen in America. Nevertheless, we ought to examine the role of guns in our society from this perspective; i.e., disarming the police.
    Most police in the UK are not armed notwithstanding that criminals are armed there. In the 19th Century, UK police would summon ordinary British subjects (who were often armed) to aid in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal. Did it really work in the UK for police to be disarmed while the subjects were armed? Does it really work in the UK today when both are disarmed while the criminals remain armed? If we don’t ask these questions our society (mostly the uncommitted voters) won’t begin to think about the answers.
    If a suspected criminal is to be shot, should he be shot by someone who has qualified immunity? Or, by someone who has no immunity at all; who must answer for his shots by a jury? If shot, should it be by someone better trained and qualified; or worse? What are the training and qualifying standards for those carrying in public?

    • If all people have the same right to self-defense, and – consequently – everyone has the same right to life, then why would one group of people have “qualified immunity” while another group would not? You can’t give qualified immunity to everyone, in which case it should extend to no one. Conversely, if I get killed by a citizen, why would my death receive greater scrutiny than it would if I were killed by a cop?
      Furthermore citizens are better trained by the police, by-and-large. The police have set qualification standards, and thus once most meet that, they holster their firearms. Citizens, on the other hand, having no such standard, often hold themselves to single standard: to improve. Thus, they aren’t constrained by the arbitrary standards you wish to place upon them.

      • I agree with your sentiments.
        “. . . why would one group of people have “qualified immunity” while another group would not? ” This is a very interesting question for which there is no definitive answer. For lack of an answer we shouldn’t shy away from asking the question as you have done.
        Governments will secure for themselves some degree of immunity; and, this is a deeply established tradition in our heritage of self government. I.e., we have long concluded that we are slightly better off with a government allowed to make some mistakes without being sued vs. a government that can’t do anything for fear of being sued. Our task, as citizens, is to balance the degree of immunity so that it doesn’t become a license to act with impunity.
        The major problem – I think – is that unjustified force by police incidents are investigated by the police themselves or the prosecutors who depend on police cooperation. There is no independence in the oversight. This lack of independence could easily be cured – if we the People felt the need to cure it. The largest police forces could easily maintain an independent body to investigate police when there is suspicion of wrong-doing and have this body report directly to the applicable legislative body (city council).

        • Because the police are required to engage in offense action and you are not. If they didn’t have some form of immunity they would be reluctant to engage.

          This attack on some form of immunity is just another attack on the concept of Public law. Contrary to what you and the folks at reason think private citizens do not have the same powers as police officers

        • “citizens do not have the same powers as police officers”

          Nor should they. If “cops” didn’t have special “powers” or immunity, just maybe they would have much better incentive not to murder and abuse others.

          And what is your problem with “Reason?”

        • The only “power” or privilege police officers have over non-badge-wearing civilians is the authority to arrest. Any other authority, right, or immunity should only be considered under strict scrutiny against the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution.

      • You’re assumption is totally incorrect. Many police officers are very good shots and do practice. Yes, some do not as much as they should, but they do go to the range as they are required to do so several times a year. Many citizens buy a gun and very seldom if ever use it again. I see and hear that all the time while on duty from citizens. They’ll tell me they have a gun after a burglary etc, but haven’t shot it in “years” in some cases. Having a gun doesn’t make you a marksman any more than having a piano makes you a musician.

  6. So that the police can be shot or run away like in the Charlie Hebdo attack? Or in the UK in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester where they could only run but not defend themselves?

    Perhaps Ed Schultz should go into a crappy area of a city at 3am to go and try and get a witness statement unarmed.

    Yeah, that will work out well — idiots all of them at MSNBC and they wonder why their ratings suck so much.

  7. I am pro-liberty, some might even say a libertarian, and there is a part of me that likes the idea! But . . . what ends up happening in places where cops are poorly armed is they do very little; they often just window dress and get a check. Granted some say that is happening now in America even though the cops are well armed. Some might even say that is a good thing 🙂

    Some smart guy said this a while back:

    Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people
    whose manners are universally corrupt

    • See N. Hollywood Bank of America 1997. Hopelessly outgunned by the bad guys, but LAPD did stand their ground despite the odds. Haven’t seen that since ’97 have you? LAPD isn’t messing around and the baddies know it. That’s the way it should be! The police are not the bad guys.

  8. Liberalism is nothing more than a mental defect – devoid of logic. Perhaps, Mr. Schultz should test his hypothesis by assuming a leadership role in the unarmed patrolling of one of America’s urban ghettos. I’d gladly drop his off.

  9. I realize that the NRA and other groups are in an awkward position with respect to law enforcement, but the gun rights movement should be embracing this disband-the-police sentiment with two arms.

    What the heck would Baltimoreans do if the police were disarmed or disbanded? The police do not have a duty to protect you. Not that they do now. The 2nd amendment guarantees people the right to defend themselves, and the constitution provides for the exact scenario government employees can no longer be trusted (a scenario aka tyranny).

    Someone should ask these progressives how people will protect themselves if the police were disarmed or disbanded, and see if it dawns on them what the 2nd amendment is for.

    • “. . . the gun rights movement should be embracing this disband-the-police sentiment . . . I wholeheartedly disagree. The police serve 3 roles:
      1. investigate crimes after the fact and pursue suspects;
      2. respond when summoned/anticipated to maintain or restore order;
      3. deter some crime by randomly patrolling and observing a crime in progress
      These 3 are listed in order of importance. It is relatively rare that when a crime occurs a cop is present when you really need him. This is the point we try to make to the uncommitted voters.
      Merely because we have a public institution (police, congress, courts, city councils, prosecutors, . . . ) in need of reform does not mean that we disband that institution. Certainly there are some such institutions that need to be disbanded; e.g., ObamaCare. Others need to be reformed.
      We ought not to make enemies of the police when the majority of them are doing an honest and honorable job. Our criticism must be concentrated in the minority who undermine the legitimate authority of the police.

      • I am not really suggesting that we actually disband law enforcement, I am saying to use it as a jumping off point in the debate to highlight that people have a duty to protect themselves, the police do not. Most people really believe the marketing on the side of patrol cars “to protect and serve.”

        Personally, I think we should go back to a model of directly elected “police chiefs” aka Sheriffs.

        • Perhaps you intended to type “disARM-the-police” but your speller changed the word to “disBAND-“

        • perhaps we should put an “as-we-know-it” after disband. The real problem is zero accountability.

      • You missed a critical responsibility of police, one that is often overlooked or ignored altogether:

        The police are to protect the rights of the accused until trial.

        • I’ll grant you your point; albeit, I would state it differently. The police have a duty NOT TO INFRINGE on the rights of the accused; which is something a little different from protecting the rights of the accused. Your point – where it is entirely valid – is that the police have a duty to protect the life and limb of any person in their custody.

          Historically, a person accused would likely be set-upon by relatives of the victim or anyone who felt he was aggrieved. Thus, in the pre-civil rights era, blacks accused of crimes would sometimes be seized from police custody and lynched. In such cases, the police failed – or at worst, took no affirmative steps – to protect the accused.

          The police have such a high duty to protect the life and limb of a person in their custody precisely because they always DISARM a person in their custody. In a disarmed state, the prisoner has no means of self-defense. Turn this around; when a person is not in police custody, to whom may he turn for protection? To the police? Nope; generally, the police have no duty to protect him. Then, the person must take precautions to avoid exposure to violence and to handle it if – despite the best of precautions – he encounters violence.

          Under this scheme of rights and duties, we have to ask: Where does the State get the power to disarm a citizen who is not (yet) in police custody?

      • “1. investigate crimes after the fact and pursue suspects;
        2. respond when summoned/anticipated to maintain or restore order;
        3. deter some crime by randomly patrolling and observing a crime in progress”

        1) Investigation and pursuit do not require firearms.
        2) “Responding” requires transportation, not firearms.
        3) Wearing a uniform and carrying a stick will deter “some” crime.

        Disarm police, go ahead, it won’t last long.

  10. In the Colonial Era and up until the 1840’s there were no police. Society seemed to function well at that time. Just because something has been done for decades doesn’t mean that it is the best solution. If police had no guns they would have to be more respectful to citizens. And if they needed a gun they would have to call on the citizens for help. Citizens would have more responsibility. Seems like a win-win to me.

    • I really don’t think that comparing 18th century America to 21st century America is valid or even relevent. Whole lotta changes since then.

      • I am not so sure.

        The Dallas Police have about 3500 officers for 1.3 mil people. Baltimore has about 3000 officers for 600k people.

        My take is that people are already largely on their own in a big city. The notion that police are protecting you is an illusion. I’ve been to a lot of cities, the odds of seeing the police are pretty small (and usually: at Paneras, at lunch).

        Baltimore solves about 50% of its homicides (more homicides go *unsolved* in Baltimore than there are in Dallas total). So what would happen if the police dissapeared? The same crimes going unsolved now would continue to go unsolved?

        Would you really say Dallas would be less safe if there were no police?

        • Yes. Any of our large cities would be less safe without police. As MarkPA points out below traffic control is a vital nececissity in our crowded urban areas. And the nature of our citizens has changed. Without police who does the individual call on for help in a crisis? His neighbors? Does he even know their names?

          Maybe you can do without police in Mayberry, but few of us live there these days.

      • I agree there have been lots of changes since the 19th century, but the jury is out as to whether they were for the better. If we still took responsibility for our own defense, police departments would be smaller by an order of magnitude, and those departments would be only to investigate whether the correct guy got offed.

        Society as a whole has shot itself in the collective foot, repeatedly, for the sole reason that some powerful people (democrats, btw) felt we needed to keep the black man unarmed and in his “place”. We screwed up, this might be a way to return to sanity.

    • “Just because something has been done for decades doesn’t mean that it is the best solution.” This is the sort of open-minded inquiry I think we ought to be promoting.

      Let’s be forthright and admit that some things have changed since the ante-bellum era. The solutions society finds for its problems will change as well. When we had no police we were a largely rural nation such that it would have been impractical to have a police force. The best we could manage was a sheriff who would pursue a suspect upon being notified of a crime. Today, we are largely an urban nation with a disproportionate amount of crime committed in urban areas. As such, we might very well make a different decision than the one made 200 years ago.

      The preceding argument does not presume that what we are doing today is optimal or nearly so. If we examine the activities consuming most cops time we would probably find that it is mostly writing traffic tickets. I do NOT say this to denigrate the police or the activity. It may very well be that the highest and best use of police time today is to keep a lid on traffic violations (DWI, speeding, running red lights). If traffic tickets pay for the police then it’s a pretty good deal. Cops keep us safe from dangerous motorists; they are paid for by the enforcement process; and, there are a lot of them around in case of unusual emergencies.

      That said, does a traffic cop really need a gun to serve a traffic citation? Or, do gun-carrying traffic-cops lead to unjustified shootings where a cop shoots a youth getting out of his vehicle when he reaches for his wallet? Does a detective investigating a crime really need to carry a gun? Or, should we – like our UK friends – have gun-carrying be the exception for cops?

      I expect we would conclude that the answer we will reach is that we ought to keep all our cops armed. Yet, by thinking trough the question we will realize why we ought to keep cops armed. Moreover, we will realize that these reasons largely apply to the civilian population; they are simply more acute for cops.

      Both cops and civilians use guns for self-defense. The major distinction is that cops are paid to go looking-for-trouble whereas civilians have no duty whatsoever to pursue trouble; with one exception. The laws of most States provide that the State (usually by way of a cop) can summon a civilian to aid in the support of the civil power. If the civilian demurs, he typically faces the risk of a misdemeanor charge.

      It’s unlikely that the State would summon a mother with children or a senior citizen to aid in the apprehension or detention of a criminal; but, the State could and occasionally does summon anyone of militia qualifications. And, on such occasions, it is equally appropriate for someone so summoned to be armed for the same reason as cops are armed.

      • As recently as 30 years ago it was federal law. If an officer identifies himself properly and requests your help if you refuse you risk federal charges.

        A deputy us marshal hauled the law book out in his office and showed me. Your state may have such a law but unless it’s been changed the feds have one that covers all law officers.

        • I assume that would be codification of the common-law raising of the hue and cry – a concept that should have been rendered obsolete by the introduction of paid, full-time police departments.

    • “In the Colonial Era and up until the 1840’s there were no police.”

      Incorrect. Try 1751, in Philadelphia.

      “In British North America, policing was initially provided by local elected officials. For instance, the New York Sheriff’s Office was founded in 1626, and the Albany County Sheriff’s Department in the 1660s. In the colonial period, policing was provided by elected sheriffs and local militias.

      In 1789 the U.S. Marshals Service was established, followed by other federal services such as the U.S. Parks Police (1791)[35] and U.S. Mint Police (1792).[36] The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751…”

      • Sheriff’s offices were historically tax collectors. Not much different than the revenue collection they do now.

    • I don’t think the owners of buildings that were torched or ransacked while the “peace officers” said it wasn’t their responsibility to stop that would notice much difference.

      • Omer, that was a decision made much higher up than the line officer dealing with the savages who called themselves “protesters”. Also, no human life good or bad is worth property. Keep in mind, Ofc. Wilson defended himself and opportunistic A-Holes took advantage and fueled the flames. That whole mess was entirely avoidable if Mr. Brown had not robbed the store to begin with.

  11. Then the other shoe drops. “Ok, we’ve disarmed the cops. Now in order that they may safely do their jobs we need a disarmed populous. Turn them in America.”

    • Yep, that’s exactly what I am thinking. Then the only ones left with guns will be the military, elites and politicians with bodyguards and the criminals. That would really work out great. What are people like this thinking? Or is this just a way to grab a headline?

  12. How about just making police staff responsible for their actions and high ranking officers responsible for their orders?

    Police state wont work without collective responsibility of police, eh?

  13. I’ve heard the anti-gun lobby shouting for years about how much safer the UK is because even the cops don’t have guns and that they are so much more peaceful then us nasty Americans. Well here’s a thought.

    In most of Europe for hundreds of years the people were never free, they were subjects, for hundreds of years they were controlled by the Kings, Lords etc, for hundreds of years the average person was a surf, downtrodden and beaten into submissiveness, they were little more then prisoners of their place in the system, as the centuries passed they developed a mindset of subjugation, in other words, they were never a free people.

    Whereas, we Americans were founded on the premise of “All men are created equal” ( and yes I realize women weren’t considered equal nor were slaves) The people of this nation were always free, we grew with the mindset that we are free and for damn sure are not subjects. Our forefathers knew what it meant to be subjects to be used, killed, enslaved at the whim of some person far away and when they had enough they fought to create a place where men were free, and they made sure we stayed free thru the creation of the founding documents to show us the way if we found ourselves slipping back under the boots of tyrants.

    So when I hear anyone from the left say ” We just need REASONABLE gun laws” it shows me that the blood of subjugation still runs thru the veins of some and they just can’t understand the idea of REAL freedom,
    and because they think to much freedom is a bad thing they want to subjugate all of us.

    What the liberal left and their slaves in the media fail to understand is that while its never really said very loud by very many, we freedom loving Americans will never allow them to put their boot on our neck nor will we be disarmed period!

    We have played nice with these fools for far too long and they become brave in their thinking that our silence is proof that they are winning. They are so wrong, we are simply FREE MEN and thus allow them to spout off because they are free men, even when they don’t want to be. They want to sell their freedoms for a collar and leash failing to understand that with those things comes the whip.

    The main difference between us is that WE are willing to fight and die for what we believe, they aren’t. We have the means and ability to fight, they don’t.

    They wish for us to beat our swords into plows, when actually its a collar and shackles we would be getting.

    Thank you but ……….NO!

    • Founded, schmounded. America was POPULATED, 500+ years ago, by men and women who braved a 3000 mile journey across open ocean in a tiny sailboat, just in search of FREEDOM, not safety, not control, not free stuff, just freedom to do or die. I would love to know what percentage died within 12 months of departing Britain’s shores. The survivors and their descendants, hundreds of years later, had no interest in being ruled by anybody. I grew up in Williamsburg, VA, in the 1960s, when the Rockefellers were spending the big bucks restoring the colonial capital and making it a showplace for the birth of freedom. Now it has been reduced to another tourist trap, but I remember.

      In the last 100-200 years, the trip has become safer and easier and faster, the welcome more grand, your success closer to guaranteed, and all the wimps left behind centuries earlier have been flooding in and teaching us fear and submission.

  14. Disarm the police huh? See the murder of Royal Army soldier Lee Rigby in London. See how the police were forced to handle that! If anyone thinks the UK, NZ or Norwegian model of policing is a great idea; then pack your bags and move! I’ve talked to many UK PC’s and there’s a movement in NZ to arm the police there. They want to be armed like their US, Australian & Candian counterparts! The Brit police weren’t always disarmed by the way, that’s is fairly recent in the 20th Cen. after banning all private gun ownership, then the police were relegated to hats and bats.

    Making comparisons to centuries old American society vs. today is ludicrous. Yes people were generally better behaved but there was still crime & NO LAW ENFORCEMENT to address it. Or worse yet, corrupt LE and judges. Contemprary society is NOTHING like 100+ years ago. In fact, I think we’ve dumbed down in many ways….just look at the internet?!

    Like it or not, the U.S. has the fairest, most professional judicial system in he world. It’s not perfect for sure, but if you as an armed citizen drop the hammer on a POS, then you’ll be grateful for the protections you are provided. Across the pond in the UK, people have been prosecuted for beating the shit out of a felon who victimized them! WTF?? Here you get praised by the public & police for that. Face it, cops don’t mind a little street justice by the citizenry, it’s human nature.

    I have been a police officer for 19 yrs. I shoot, I’m an NRA member, I live and work in a state that has very few gun laws. I respect the right to carry & have no problem with it. Fact is, most cops don’t care & wish citizens would take their security more seriously. Too many are just sheeple & get eaten by felonious wolves.

    The idea of police summoning citizens is insane! They do not have the same legal protections except under certain circumstances and those are extreme. Hell, you rarely see citizens helping police wrestle a suspect let alone using a gun. There are exceptions where good people have helped police with firearms, but those are rare. Most people are more inclined to pull out the phone & make some idiotic tweet, facebook or take a selfie while the police are fighting or In a shootout with some asshole! Likewise, the gun rights movement has some real bright ones who love to goad the police into confrontations over ‘open carry’, or show up @ state capitols with AR15’s. What pray tell do they hope to accomplish with such asinine behavior? The mass commie media has a field day with that and Jane (the voter) soccer mom just thinks they are armed morons….& she is right!

    Also, youtube hasn’t helped either. Too many “gun owners” post videos of themselves being abject fools with firearms for the world too see. Well, that’s not helping the cause.

    Instead of blaming the police which is currently envogue, why don’t we as gun owners foster better relations with LE? It’s not that tough. Quit the confrontational behavior & work on diplomacy (that’s works both ways too: police & citizens) then perhaps we can get past the stereotypical views & make some progress.

    Oh, the courts may have said the polce technically don’t have an obligation to protect, but how many officers have died or been injured trying to protect citizens??? Too many! Before one starts o their diatribe about how the ‘cops don’t do anything BS’ you may want to look at the facts. Police all over the U.S. do just that every damn day! It doesn’t make the news; the warning or cite you just got for speeding may have just saved you or someone else by slowing you down. Little things like that all add up to keeping society safe.

    Bear in mind folks, there are bad apples in any profession. There are 800K police officers in this great nation who do their jobs with honor & dignity ever single day. Who runs towards gunfire? Not citizens, it’s the police! Remember that when you are on your anti cop tirade.

    • I think if you look around, there are plenty of citizens who will run toward gunfire, a good example is one of the men who tackled Gabby Giffords’ shooter, who was shopping in a nearby store, unaware of her political event, when he heard the gunfire and responded at a sprint, though unarmed. Another would be that church shooting in CO, where a woman with a CCL engaged the killer after he murdered two young girls on the steps, was headed inside to kill hundreds when she started firing. Another carrier joined her, and between them they killed him, before any cops arrived or anyone else was injured.

      Likewise, you will find plenty of police officers who will run the other way when they hear gunfire. The security guard and first responding policeman at the Colombine shooting are good examples, as well as the more recent (unarmed) police officers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

      Generalizations are generally wrong. Does a police officer wish to be in a position where his life depends on some citizen coming to his rescue? He’d have to be suicidal crazy. Do I wish to be in a position where my life depends on a police officer risking his own life to rescue me? Oh, hell no! Seems like there is a lesson to be learned there, somewhere.

      • Larry, you are correct and I should have mentioned there are plenty of citizens who have responded to dire situations to assist police and or stop a felonious assault on a 3rd party. The incident in TX where a small town police Sgt. was alone in a shootout with a Mini 14 wielding maniac. A resident nearby shot the suspect with his .44 Mag and put him down with large caliber holes in him. The Sgt. ended the fight with some well placed 5.56 rounds. The good shooting resident was lauded as a hero. I say; “nice shot sir” too. The most recent was the CCW citizen in Las Vegas who engaged the two freaks who gunned down two LVMPD officers in cold blood. He did in fact slow them down and paid the ulitimate price in doing so. Who knows what they might have done had he not engaged them totally screwing up their plans. Sadly that citizen died too. Phoenix Police had an officer ambushed by three undocumented aliens who were dealing dope. The PPD officer died at the scene and a citizen shot one of the three with a Glock 31 and the bad guy was captured with a .357 bullet in his back. The PHX LE Assc. bought him a new Glock as a show of gratitude since his gun was used in a capitol case and he’d be without it for a some time. That man was publicly hailed as a hero by the PPD Chief. Even thought he shot the suspect as he fled, the MCAO viewed it as it was; a dangerous fleeing felon who needed to be stopped by any means. So, he was good to go.

        So yes, there are cases out there of citizens helping out. One common denominator is that those incidents occur in gun friendly states typically, not places like the NE or mid Atlantic states and California.

        Most people aren’t obligated too nor do they expect to engage a shooter anywhere. The brave good people who do well, good for them! They are a minority indeed.

        Trust me, god forbid I ever find myself in a lone shootout with a suspect and some citizen is willing to help out however possible; I will buy them whatever beverage they desire when the smoke clears.

    • “Or worse yet, corrupt LE and judges.”

      This is exactly what we have today and why you must be disarmed if you are a government employee. You work for the citizens, we have every right to determine how you do your job. Don’t like it, find honest work.

      • Mallory; Wow! You are the very ultra right wing type the media touts as a menace to society. Honest work? Really? I have to be so damn straight and narrow that it makes one’s head spin. I little white lie will get a cop fired…forever! Keep that in mind, and how many professions will do that? Also, why are you so afraid of the cops? Are you a convicted felon and always looking over your shoulder? Are you just a miscreant that can’t behave in civilized society? If you hate US police so bad, go to Mexico and deal with their “public servants”….They’re honest as can be………

  15. I’m a little surprised by the comments. Any other time the question of disarmament come up, TTAG readers are adamant on “shall not be infringed.” However, it seems that the majority of comments are saying that it’s OK to disarm police.

    My 2 cents are that police should be held to the same carry laws as citizens.

    • Which would be OK if the police were actually held accountable. If I see two people struggling (without knowing any details) and pick one of them to shoot and I choose wrong, I’m going to jail. If a cop does the same thing, not a damn thing happens to them. Get an amendment stating the government employees must suffer the same consequences as non-government employees and get rid of the bullshit that is Internal Affairs (seriously, is anyone surprised that when the police investigate themselves, they always find themselves innocent of any wrong doing?!) and then I’ll support your view.

    • The constitution does not guarantee the RKBA to someone’s job. In the past, very few decades ago when you were hired as a cop, in most places you were privileged to carry a gun right then, maybe you’ll get some training some months from now, maybe not. If you work for a grocery chain, no one thinks you have to carry a gun. If you are delivering pizza, you are normally forbidden by your employer from carrying a gun, there is no difference being a cop, RKBA does not apply to your job.

      • “RKBA does not apply to your job.”

        Actually, it applies equally, whatever your “job” might be. The absolute right/authority to defend oneself and others is hard wired into the human being. Some people have simply developed a short circuit.

        Nobody has to work for an outfit that demands one be armed, or unarmed, for that matter. Why does this kind of thing always seem to wind up being something that people want to impose on others, either direction.

        • Since the cops work for us, we have every right to dictate how they do their job, armed or disarmed. If they don’t like the terms, they are more than welcome to find honest work.

        • Absolutely. 🙂 I choose to strap on my gun each day, and accept the responsibility of defending myself and my neighbors. I choose not to hire any cops at all.

          We have a sheriff here, one who is seriously dedicated to doing exactly his job and no more. He lives here, and his kids play with all the others, they shop and go to church with others in the community. He has no trouble remembering that he can be fired easily… and we don’t have to wait for the next election. Luckily, he’s a great person and we’ve never seen any need to correct him.

          Oh, and we don’t have any measurable violent crime OR police brutality here either. There might just be a connection there. 🙂

  16. I fully support disarming the standard police officers. There’s no need for a gun to write speeding tickets or deal with shoplifting or reports of a burglary (it’s not like they ever show up while your home is being robbed). You’d see a huge decrease in unjustified violence by the police and a huge change in how the public perceives them. Interactions with the police would be much friendlier if Officer Tough-guy didn’t have the gun to make him feel big and bad, like when they pull over a minivan with a pregnant woman in the drivers seat for speeding and have their hand on their gun while approaching. If there’s a situation that requires guns (schools shooting, hostage situation, etc) then they can call in a SWAT team or get guns from lockers at the station.

    I’m sure some of you will say that if we have the right bear arms, so should they. And that’s true, in their private lives. The problem is that they do not have the right to be a police officer and that the police as a whole have shown us time and time again that they are not capable of handling firearms responsibly and not abusing their authority to commit crimes without consequences.

      • And you are a tax fattened thug. You need to remember, cops only have power that is delegated to them by the citizens. You work for us. Disarming you is our prerogative. Don’t like it? Find honest work and quit living off the sweat of my brow.

        • Mr. Mallory,

          When you have the testicular fortitude to take oath of office and be a police officer and see what I see every single damn day, then you can bitch! Thug, REALLY? Sounds to me like you lack the social skills to coexist in civilized society and have to blame the very people who are charged with keeping jerkoff’s like you line. I know, I’ve deal with your kind too long. You will never get it and its always somebody’s fault but not yours. Sweat of your brow? You sound like a tax dodging militia type anyway, when do YOU pay taxes??

          Like I said before, you are welcome to move to another country if you feel like you are too picked on by the police here. Wish you luck……

        • You’re right, I don’t have the stomach for two dozen donuts a day…. That much sugar would make me vomit! Or maybe you were talking about playing Candy Crush on your phone all day while sitting along the side of the road, waiting for someone to drive past so you can rob them under threat of violence if they resist?

      • Maybe the government should only be harassing people when there is a victim. No more speeding tickets or jaywalking. What a concept, leaving people alone unless they harm others.

        • All well and good, but that philosophical view- or at least it’s concrete use- is not held by by the majority of citizens in the republic.

          Was it Holmes who said “your right to swing your fist ends at my face”? Taken strictly, that would mean one could stroll through the streets all they want up to the point where they block a specific car, right? The problem is that unless you have cops all over the place you’d have people doing it all the time with much less deterrent. And what would that mean for speeding? You can do whatever you want right up to the point where you run someone down?

          Such a framework exists nowhere in the modern world with a functioning system of laws. Don’t expect it to happen here. If you want to try this uber-libertarian idea you’ll need to have an island or otherwise uninhabited little area to colonize.

  17. I don’t think we should disarm them. Just make every firearms law apply to them equally. If we’re not ‘disarmed’ in states like california and new york, they won’t be disarmed. I’m tired of this whole ‘one law for us, one law for them’.

    • That is the very Us & Them mentality I referred too previously. Police don’t legislate laws, we enforce them. So do we always agree with or like the laws? NO! But, this nation is a Republic & we have to go by the rule of law. Cops are not immune from the laws, plenty have been in hot water for things they’ve done. However, keep in mind at police are EXPECTED to go towards & meet the trouble as Joe/Jane citizen is not. We are going to have to use force & sometimes lethal force. Yes we are given some legal protections as long as we do it right. Physicians have similar protections too. When your ass is on the line do you want a doctor to pussyfoot around because of rules, or think outside the box and save you? Sure, you may die but you’ll be dead if they did nothing. So, when poo flys, do you want the cops to just show up or deal with it? Trolley Sq. Mall in Utah; cops took care of that without hesitation with the help of an armed off duty police officer. You see it all over the news, we run to the gunfire when everyone else runs away.

      If a cop does something illegal, then they should and are held accountable. How many time really has a CCW holder been sent to prison for nothing? None that I can find. Just like a cop, if they did something stupid with a gun then they should be held accountable.

  18. There were some stats presented on this site recently that a cop is three times more likely to commit murder than a CC’er, yet a CC’er is three times more likely actually shoot a criminal. So who should have the guns and who shouldn’t?

    • Sure, and a lineman is far more likely to get electrocuted than you. An RN is far more likely to get stuck my a needle than you. A highway worker is far more likely to get run over than you & a commercial pilot is far more likely to be in a plane crash than you.

      Cops carry guns to deal with extremes that Joe citizen is not obliged nor legally required to address. Statistically, police & military are FAR more likely to shoot someone than a citizen. Some of you insinuate that American Police are Bolivian death squads! Really? Do you as a gun owner like being labeled as a ‘shine chugging, beer bellied-trigger happy killer that the media would have the uneducated believe? So why do that to then the coppers?

      Believe it or not; the majority of police officers are not antigun. There are some who are and many of the admin pogues in departments are openly hostile towards guns & their owners. That is a tiny % of the department. A Chief or two who gripe is hardly a factual reflection on the feelings of hundreds of officers under their command.

      Those stats you refer too sound a bit too skewed. In Arizona, police have to use their weapons a lot more than CCW & non CCW citizens. We have a few shootings where citizens lawfully defend themselves, but far fewer than the police do.

      • “Chief or two who gripe is hardly a factual reflection on the feelings of hundreds of officers under their command.”

        Really? How strange. Where did these chiefs and admin types come from anyway? What changed between the time they were among the rank and file who love armed mundanes, and their anti-gun high positions? Or do they assume command without any street experience? Sounds like a problem to me.

        And I have yet to notice any serious number of rank and file police doing any real promotion of universal gun ownership/carry. Most of what I read seems to make it pretty clear that the majority of “LEOs” are perfectly happy with the long lists of “prohibited persons” and all that goes with it.

        Then, the “orders are orders” thing about blaming the boss doesn’t fly too well either. Didn’t count for much at Nuremberg…

        • You misunderstand. The bosses in many larger departments are appointed by the politicians and generally don’t come from the inside up the ranks. Likewise, too many who do promote tend to get the proverbial “institutional lobotomy” and forget where they came from. When they do hit the administrative ranks, they’re drinking too much ‘Kool Aid’ and will do the bidding of the politicians. Those who refuse to get ‘relieved of duty’ and are sent packing since they are at will (appointed).

          Comparing US Police to Nazi high command is offensive and not needed. You can ask any cop in a larger city and they’ll tell you that very few of the folks who refuse to drink the Kool Aid promote much past Sgt. or Lt. They’re just not “company types”. Just like the corporate world, bosses like ‘Yes men/women’ not someone who will question them or buck their system.

          Keep in mind that coppers have to enforce the laws on the books, failure to do so is nonfeasance and will result in discipline or worse; prosecution. Also, the situations you refer to also occur in very hostile liberal states. Until the voters there get their craniums out of their collective rectums, nothing will change in those jurisdictions.

      • IMHO

        Cops should be agents of public safety, not social control. They should work for the people, not work to keep the people in line at the whim of the government. Sometimes I feel like they are the field foremen for our masters.

        Cops should not be assigned to do routine traffic enforcement. This is demeaning and ruins their credibility. There is technology that can handle this now or jurisdictions could have an expanded version of parking enforcement. No car has to be stopped for going 10 mph over the speed limit. It can photographed and handled by mail.

        When representing their department, cops, including leadership, should express no public opinions at all on gun laws. They get paid to enforce the laws, not lobby to change them. If they have personal opinions, they should write their representatives like anyone else, not use their positions as bully pulpits. It seems to me that when police leaders do this, it is most often to court favor with politicians, which makes it even more repugnant.

        All cops, including leadership, have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, yet they participate in violating multiple amendments constantly, especially 2A. So they are in violation of their oath constantly. But of course, they are “only following orders.” Where have we heard that before? When confiscation happens, and it already has, it will be the police who are coming for your guns. That puts a barrier between us and them.

        This is our country, not the government’s country!

        • “Cops should not be assigned to do routine traffic enforcement. . . . There is technology that can handle this now . . . It can photographed and handled by mail.”
          For better or for worse, that’s where municipalities are going. States and cities are increasingly strapped for cash and technology provides two great solutions:
          – add cameras that generate fine revenue;
          – reduce payroll by laying-off cops.
          Clearly, the end-game can’t contemplate zero cops. There will still have to be a few to chase down the scofflaws; but very few will be needed to arrest scofflaws. Most of us will pay our fines. There will be no need for cops to patrol the streets. Therefore, to whatever extent patrols deter violence, that type of crime should rise. Solution, more cameras to try to photograph violent criminals. When they can be identified, the few remaining cops can track them down. Generally speaking, this approach might be relatively successful.
          Yet, there are two disturbing implications:
          – first, victims are on-their-own; to an even greater degree than is the case now. Violent criminals are free from concern that their acts will be interrupted and that they will be arrested. We will go from, e.g., a 1% risk of apprehension on-the-scene to a 1/10 of 1% risk.
          – second, the remaining ranks of cops will number so few that they will have no chance of quelling riots.
          The Anti’s ought to be aware that they will have to learn to depend more on themselves (to say nothing of the militia) as this trend gradually unfolds.

  19. The main reason for cops being unarmed in some of those countries is because handguns hold such a significant street value in some cases more than the average citizen makes in a year. it puts the cop at risk of being attacked simply to steal his pistol! Among the cop himself being corrupted and conveniently “losing his service pistol”! It is crazy how these governments so fear their own people, they have made old crappy unreliable cheap handguns, and a few rounds more valuable than their weight in gold!

  20. Disarming the police is a bad idea. It will not improve public safety and will make people, namely cops, less safe. De-unionizing police is a good idea. It will make police accountable and thereby improve public safety without imperiling officer safety in any way.

    • But it will improve the safety of tax paying citizens. The safety of a cop is not my worry, the safety of my family is. Disarm government employees now.

    • Accountable?? You have no idea how damn ACCOUNTABLE police are! I have to justify EVERYTHING I do. Driving, training, interaction with the public, court appearances, overtime……

      We have to deal with beureaucratic nonsense daily. Labor Organizations are in place just like any other employment has. We have workplace labor issues just like everyone else, that have nothing to do with use of force.

      • First of all, stop complaining abut being accountable. That’s fascist thinking at its worst. If you’re afraid of accountability, join the SS.

        Second, unions keep bad cops on the job. Just as there are a number of criminals who are responsible for committing crime after crime, so too there are bad cops who are responsible for violation after violation. They cannot be terminated because of their union contract and a grievance system that’s loaded in favor of unionized cops.

        It’s a system that’s killing innocent people, and cops too. But you will never understand that because you’re still hiding behind your blue wall of silence.

        • Ralph, you are right about the union corruption. That’s a subject that affects all unions jobs of any type. Here in AZ its a right to work state. A police labor organization in AZ does not have the power of a police union in NY or NJ. They are there to assist with labor related issues and can not and do not keep a bad cop on the job. In fact, they’ll tell someone who is a total screwball to just resign in lieu of termination to save everyone the hassle of an IA when they know they’re in the wrong. We are held accountable here and that makes better cops, because they’re honest. Are there bad ones; yes indeed and they’ll get discovered. My agency has just fired 4 in the last two months for doing really stupid things, nothing criminal but very stupid nonetheless. You know what? They had it coming, and there’s no wall of silence. I don’t like bad cops either! They make us all look bad and denigrate the profession as a whole. I think the Gov. of Wisconsin has some serious moxy to take on the unions like he did. Do people need protection from malicious persecution by their employers? Yes they do, both private and public. So I do agree with you on the union issue. However, I will not risk my career or freedom for another officer who does something illegal! They are breaking the very laws that I’m sworn to uphold.

      • Oh goodness no! You have to be held accountable to the people that pay you? How terrible! If only you could, oh I don’t know, do another line of work that doesn’t involve you being issued a weapon by the state and given power to violate people’s rights?

  21. Cops should not be prohibited from carrying arms. They should be free to obtain a CCL, buy a firearm, and carry it on duty IAW the laws of his state. Just like everyone else. No issued firearms, no free lunch. I think we’d all get to constitutional carry much faster that way.

    • No, they work for us. We have every right to tell our employees how they can do their job. If the citizens decide to disarm the police, then the cops can like it or find honest work.

    • AMEN SIR! I don’t see anyone on here willing to put on blue or Camo and defend the rights of others. What I do see are people with a political agenda trying to foist their hopelessly idealistic views on everyone else. What they fail to remember is that the liberal media looks at these sites too & uses their misguided commentary against them.

      If the police are SOOOO bad in this country, head south to Mexico or perhaps Somalia or Liberia? No police there at all! The Mexican police, aww they’re harmless right?

      • Poor baby,,,I volunteer. In my city south of Chicago it seems the only thing our PO-leece do is harass folks and write tickets. Don’t like the job-QUIT.

        • Walker,
          I like the job. Can’t speak for Chicago and the issues up there are indeed another encyclopedia of questionable police practices. What I have read here today strikes me as ironic. People who read this site presumably are gun toting free men, yet have no compunction about touting violating another persons rights. Sounds a bit too liberal for me; in that I can say what I want, but you can’t BS. Likewise, the LIBERAL media is fueling this anti cop rhetoric and too many are on the bandwagon, liberals and conservatives. Police are the face of the government and have to bear the brunt of everyone’s rage when things aren’t to their liking.

          Do you honestly think that the police who have to protect those total whackjob’s from the Westboro Babtist Church when they protest want to be there? Let alone keep people from assailing them? Hell no! I can tell you they would like to turn their batons on the WBC lunatics for causing the mess!! But, they’re sworn to uphold the Rule of Law and will protect their right to protest as much as the people who hate them can say tell them as much.

          Remember, police have a job to do. It’s not going to make people happy and sometimes things get ugly. Generally it is not the police who started it. If the scofflaw wasn’t being a knucklehead then the cops wouldn’t be involved. Reality check: the majority of US citizens have VERY little contact with police– why? Because they’re not doing anything wrong. Its a simple solution; behave and there’s no issue. We have laws for a reason be it criminal or civil traffic laws.

    • Why is it that government leeches get upset when citizens start talking about removing some of their delegated authority?

  22. Sounds like a start, but we need to remove the nightsticks as well. Let them work with radios and their moral authority. They work for us, if we decide that our employees should not be allowed to carry weapons, that is our right.

  23. And the problem would be…???

    Watch the policestate dildofuckers whine wah wha.

    Fuck em: let em buy their own shit. We’re not suppose to even have a RedCoat ‘Sir’ Peel modeled standing army with same command/rank hierarchy, BDU, ROE, and wartoys.

    High time we abolished this lunatic #GovtTerrorist construct once and for all: aside from the Shire Sheriff English Common Law derived county sheriff, America NEVER had a standing occupying army for a domestic police force.

    Like everything else in the commie socialist statists dominated state indoctrination center brainwashed minion-ville that is the govt, this conventional acceptance of the delusion that _’we ALWAYS had govt police’ is post-1864 post-Progressive historical revisionism of the worst kind.

    2nd amendment plus Committees of Safety and volunteer specialized coterie were the only intended model in this American Constitutional Republic… now on its last legs.

    The entire notion of govt police must be addressed. At best they should only be used to arrest other corrupt govt officials.

    Won’t matter: these econ-imbecilic idiots are delusional if they think they’re ‘deserved’ their $30-50k/yr+ pensions, let alone post currency-ry-reset that they’re gonna get paid with anything. Not evem TLC supplemental will pay for it, once a municipal corp, aka your local govt, and their insurance underwriters deem the local PD to be too high a risk, like Maywood, CA, and the entire town, city council, PD, and FD shut down for good.

    Like everything else ‘govt service,’ it’s not the human function that is in question: it’s who’s doing it.

    Being able to hire security personnel isn’t the issue.

    The real issue is being mandated at gun point to be forced to pay for a legion of socialist commies who are supposed to be SERVANTS, whom psychotically delude they’re the masters, whom commie entitlement delude they’re deserved pensions to paid for by stolen wealth of their citizen employers forever, who are never personally held liable for any of their actions, hard to fire them and keep them fired, often literally legally walk away with murder, a profession which per capita attracts the highest percentage of liars, frauds, wife beaters, pedophiles, and actual murderers and the 10% sociopathic present among any human culture’s gene pool??

    Especially now with new numbers obliterating the old stat that you’re 8x.mire likely murdered by a cop than a terorrist, the new DOJ’s number states that an American is FIFTY-FIVE TIMES more likely to be murdered by a GovtTerrorist oink oink than a non-state terrorist.

    As such, to continue this cray cray train of perpetuating the lunacy of the very concept of govt police, would be akin to willfully paying to hire Alqaeda/IsIs x 55.

    • tjlarson2k;

      Yea, no kidding….take a look at the UK. Guns are flooding in illegally and what is the Home Office’s solution? More Tasers. Oh, that will fix the problem. Hell, cops there can’t carry a knife that 1-locks or 2-any blade over 3″ long. Sheath knife? FORGET IT! That insane knife law applies to all subjects of the crown. So our British cousins are very much disarmed. Both citizens and the police: and it shows by the Lee Rigby murder by two Islamafacists on the streets of London. The baton wielding Met Officers had to contain until the ARV’s arrived and shot the two jackasses. Here in the US, those two would have been dead very quickly…..and rightly so!

      Oddly, the armed police in the UK are just that; ARMED TO THE TEETH. Openly carrying Glock 17’s and HK MP7’s or MP5’s (select fire) slung. Here, that causes panic when a cop has an AR15 out for a situation. So it’s a bit amusing to hear people tout how US police should be disarmed when the UK police who are packing heat are doing it and then some while walking around. No one there isles seems to lose sleep over it…..

  24. May have already stated (I didn’t read all the comments) but what comes right after the disarming of the police is the disarming of everyone else “for the safety of the police.” Kind of like the attempt to ban M855 “for the safety of the police.”

  25. It would take a brave person to do something like that.

    Brave is not the word I would use. I can only imagine the sort of mentally deficient maniac who would willingly respond to a “shots fired” call in Detroit carrying nothing but a nightstick and a whistle.

  26. Whoa there people! I actually live in a country where unarmed Police are the norm (New Zealand), and we have not had any wholesale takeover of our cities or suburbs by armed criminals. The few crims who are armed, only use their weapons to settle intra and inter gang disputes and rivalries. The last thing they want to do is go to war with the Police.

    Our police have ready access to weapons in their cars (Bushmasters and Glocks) should an armed offender situation arise. Where this might be suspected, like raiding a gang house, usually the Armed Offender Squad (Police Ninjas) is used. The police Association (Union) has asked for all officers to be armed, but we don’t live in that sort of society. It is illegal to carry arms here. It is quite safe for unarmed Police, and there are very rare instances of Police being shot. Those were usually armed Police trying to confront an active shooter solo.

    The public here are mainly of British descent, and have the same mindset, but from a past era where private firearms ownership is both respected and encouraged. There are far too many hunters and target shooters for firearms to be banned as has happened in Britain itself.

    Due to our largely unarmed Police, we have had a very few (mostly accidental) Police shootings of civilians, hence no public outrage and no angry mobs calling for vengeance.

    It is very safe here. I have great confidence in our Police, but of course you have to rely on your own common sense to avoid dangerous situations. I have been to gang houses, spoken to gang members, and they feel part of the community, not hated villains hunted by armed Police. Perhaps that is what is needed in America.

    So yes, there is a place where rainbows flow and unicorns prance around happily. You should visit.

    • Martin,

      Sadly NZ has lost its share of constables over the years due to gunfire. The most recent in Napier NZ. The comparison’s to American culture vs. the Commonwealth’s is very hard to make. We are very similar, yet very different when it comes to constitutional rights we here in the US have vs. our Commonwealth cousins. After all we’re two English speaking nations divided by a common language. haha. America is HUGE compared to NZ and we have our share of felonious nitwits to deal with who despite their prohibited possessor status, seem to find guns anyway. I know there is a movement to arm the NZ police routinely like their Australian counterparts.

      This abject fear displayed by some of the posters today is bordering on lunacy. They seem to truly believe that American cops are hate filled rogue executioners. What they fail to grasp, or rather refuse to understand is that the police here stateside don’t use lethal force as much as we could to stop bad guys. We use so many other means to stop people that technically we’re justified in shooting. I say that goes a long way showing the restraint used by police when they ‘could have’ shot but didn’t and used other means; i.e. less lethal technology. Sadly, when lethal force is used it is a huge deal. Throw in in the race card and it goes off the rails.

      The US will never be what it was and we’ll never be like NZ. There was a time in this nation that guns were legal virtually everywhere, including NY and the like. But, stupid people and even stupider politicians screw it up by committing crimes and then legislating fix-it laws that hose everyone who didn’t do anything wrong. Then, the police get blamed for it? Hmm, some people need to focus their irritation at the people who caused this to begin with: The criminals and criminal politicians!

    • New Zealand? Really? Tiny country with a tiny population. Other than English and having “oppressed” minority folks just what can we learn from You? 7million people live in my county alone-with possibly 150000 gang members…with a helluva lot of guns. New Zealand looks nice though. And good luck with Cyclone coming…

      • OK, race relations. When white settlement began, it was on the basis of the Waitangi Treaty of 1840, which is still respected. The Maori were a vibrant if warlike people who were organized in tribes (iwi) and villages (hapu). Despite the musket wars and the Land Wars of the 1840s and 1860s, Maori and Pakeha (whites) continued alongside each other until the present. Maori culture and language had a revival in the 1970s, and are now an essential element of all official celebrations. There is a high degree of intermarriage, and those of pure Maori descent are now rare. Samoan and Tongan workers came in large numbers in the 1970s and 1980s.

        Dispruption caused by economic changes in the 1970s and 1980s brought poverty to the urban Maori and Island groups, which led to the rise in semi criminal gangs, whose income used to come from marijuana, but who now trade in meth. But the main function of gangs is to provide social interaction for disaffected youth. The criminal side is a minor one. The important thing is that gangs members still have a strong cultural identity which links them to their tribal origins, and shields them from the worst effects of the justice system. They are not so embittered that they are divorced from society. There is hope for reform and life beyond bars.

        There are also few Pakeha families without some Maori and or Island members. So there is much greater sympathy for their needs than if society was fractured and stratified.

        Recent hard right wing economic policies have created much greater income inequality, but this affects citizens of all races. The fundamental cohesive nature of society remains, although iti s strained.

        It is when there is a complete breakdown in race relations that the need for regularly armed Police arises, as it has in America and Australia. We paid many millions of dollars in reparations for the Land Wars damages to the tribes, which has allowed the creation of tribal business systems which help tribal members to achieve financial success. This is crucial – past misdeeds need to be corrected, to an adequate level. This allows both Treaty partners to negotiate in dignity. Only then can healing of racial divisions happen.

        Once there is mutual respect through trust, social cohesion increases, crime reduces, and violence is much abated. Alcohol reduction needs to be imposed, as most crime stems from alcohol abuse.

        Once you can walk safely in each other’s neighborhoods, once you have relatives and family members in all ethnic groups, you have a better and a safer community. There is also less need for armed Police.

        With America as it is now, only a fool would recommend this, but there is a way forward, which requires sacrifice, hard work and a complete change in attitude by all parties.

        We have done it. It s possible.

  27. “But there are places on the face of this earth where there are police officers that don’t carry firearms…”

    Sure there are. Places like the UK where you can get beheaded. Or France, where you have to watch people die because all you have is a stick versus a couple bad guys with AKs. Since I’m pretty sure those are going to be your primo examples of stick wielding police forces, care to play this game again, Eddy?

  28. I don’t believe law enforcement should be disarmed. Things specific to guns I would like changed are to significantly adjust the requirements for pointing a gun at someone and removing the ability to claim protocol as the only legitimate excuse for shooting a family pet.

    I am not talking about just clearing leather and being ready as needed. I am talking about pointing a weapon at a person or a pet that has not done anything to justify being shot. I am also not saying once you aim you are required to fire and I don’t have a problem with a lot of freedom to clear leather in place of the direct aiming that is done now when there is reasonable suspicion but no obvious threat.

    I am saying don’t aim at a target unless you believe it is okay to destroy it. Where have I heard that before? For the sake of this point I am going with the premise that those employed in law enforcement do not believe it is okay to destroy a person that is not a threat. The same obviously can not be said for the acceptability of destroying dogs. If they are unfortunate enough to be aimed at by law enforcement there doesn’t seem to be a good chance of that being the worst part of the encounter.

  29. Well, you know how the legislators have all sorts of anti-gun laws for civilians byt all sorts of carve outs for police and military? I think we should just reverse all the anti-gun laws to only apply to the police and military. See how that flies when the shoe is on the other foot.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here