But this is my quandary. Countries that have fewer guns also seem not to have these sorts of tactics employed. That seems exactly backwards from what many argue the Second Amendment was intended to do.

 

I think the disconnect between the US and other first world countries is that we are the only one that was borne out of a gun culture. Historically, in countries such as the UK and France, for the most part the only time a citizen handled a gun is if they did a stint in the military.

 

Gun ownership is a tradition in the US that dates back centuries. That's not the case in Europe, so it was relatively easy to put restrictive gun ownership laws in place for those countries. There was little outrage because few people owned guns to begin with. In the US, however, it's like trying to put toothpaste back into a tube.

This exists.

 

Instagram

 

 

But it's gone now.

 

I think the disconnect between the US and other first world countries is that we are the only one that was borne out of a gun culture. Historically, in countries such as the UK and France, for the most part the only time a citizen handled a gun is if they did a stint in the military.

 

Gun ownership is a tradition in the US that dates back centuries. That's not the case in Europe, so it was relatively easy to put restrictive gun ownership laws in place for those countries. There was little outrage because few people owned guns to begin with. In the US, however, it's like trying to put toothpaste back into a tube.

 

That's part of it, too.

That's part of it, too.

 

And it's important to note that in a country such as the UK, people still just get into regular fights, or they just stab you. In the US that escalates into a shootout.

I wouldn't agree without more information, like how many of those specialized teams are there and how often are those types of forces deployed and in what instances?

 

I'd almost guarantee they use them less and have less. They have less people and probably less gun violence. The fact remains that they do not sacrifice their police officers safety out of fear of looking mean, or "militarized". These units aren't roaming the streets of the United States on a normal day. They're responding to major events, shootings, and higher risk warrants.

 

My argument is and always will be that it should not be about what they have, it's how they use it.

I'd almost guarantee they use them less and have less. They have less people and probably less gun violence. The fact remains that they do not sacrifice their police officers safety out of fear of looking mean, or "militarized". These units aren't roaming the streets of the United States on a normal day. They're responding to major events, shootings, and higher risk warrants.

 

My argument is and always will be that it should not be about what they have, it's how they use it.

 

I mostly agree, except I don't think their uses have been constrained to extreme situations. They are being used more frequently by more and more departments than in the past and the results have been problematic. Relatedly, I criticize the "militarization" of the policing because it implies that the public is a battle zone, citizens are enemies, the police are soldiers at war, and thus anything is allowable. I fear that this trend will lead to more problems and it isn't healthy. A lot of that has been born out in Ferguson.

I mostly agree, except I don't think their uses have been constrained to extreme situations. They are being used more frequently by more and more departments than in the past and the results have been problematic. Relatedly, I criticize the "militarization" of the policing because it implies that the public is a battle zone, citizens are enemies, the police are soldiers at war, and thus anything is allowable. I fear that this trend will lead to more problems and it isn't healthy. A lot of that has been born out in Ferguson.

 

What have the police in Ferguson done that is militarized, compared to other riots? Armored trucks? Camo? Riot shields?

 

The police in Ferguson tried to scale back their show of force and what happened? They were forced to go back to what they were doing before, because scaling back failed.

 

What exactly implies that the public is a battle zone? Or that citizens are the enemy (Police are citizens too?)?

I would be one of the people who shake the hand of LE and thank them for their work . I don't take lightly what you do or any other person in LE takes when it comes to risk. I stated in this very thread I have friends and family in LE. Where you find anger is in any sort of constructive criticism toward LE , when my criticism doesn't come from anger but flaws I feel can be fixed. The sense of infallibility is confusing. .

 

If you can't see the rise in the libertarian ranks of the republican party that blends with modern liberal of Democrat party my man then you are letting the world pass you by. Every republican around my age which is early to mid 30s that I know at least leans much more classic libertarian than the party did even a decade ago. Take a poll of Republicans under the age of 40 on the war on drugs and I think you will be surprised.

True libertarians have very little in common with liberals and I cringe every time that I read a post that claims otherwise. Individual liberty and economic freedom lie at the heart of libertarianism and the massive government for which liberals pine is antithetical to both of those core beliefs of the true libertarian.

I think the disconnect between the US and other first world countries is that we are the only one that was borne out of a gun culture. Historically, in countries such as the UK and France, for the most part the only time a citizen handled a gun is if they did a stint in the military.

 

Gun ownership is a tradition in the US that dates back centuries. That's not the case in Europe, so it was relatively easy to put restrictive gun ownership laws in place for those countries. There was little outrage because few people owned guns to begin with. In the US, however, it's like trying to put toothpaste back into a tube.

 

Very true.

 

The one thing you see in many European cities that you don't see in the US though, is armed military personel walking around in busy city sections, at the airport, at the mall, etc. The times I've been to Europe it was a pretty common site.

 

US citizens would have a cow.

Very true.

 

The one thing you see in many European cities that you don't see in the US though, is armed military personel walking around in busy city sections, at the airport, at the mall, etc. The times I've been to Europe it was a pretty common site.

 

US citizens would have a cow.

Sadly, it is no longer safe for our military to wear their uniforms in many parts of their own country. Soldiers who are assigned to bases near our capital city are discouraged from wearing their uniforms off base in this area.

Sadly, it is no longer safe for our military to wear their uniforms in many parts of their own country. Soldiers who are assigned to bases near our capital city are discouraged from wearing their uniforms off base in this area.

 

No longer safe?

No longer safe?

No longer safe. They wear civilian clothes to and from the bases. For the most part, they only wear their uniforms if they are traveling between bases or to and from the Pentagon. It may be different for Soldiers assigned to bases in more rural parts of the country.

No longer safe. They wear civilian clothes to and from the bases. For the most part, they only wear their uniforms if they are traveling between bases or to and from the Pentagon.

 

No longer safe from what?

No longer safe from what?

From verbal and physical harassment. They are also potential kidnapping targets of Islamic terrorists.

If every time a white person kills a black person is due to racism, it will never stop.

 

I'm sure there have been plenty of times that race has been a motive but people need to realize it's not every single time.