Purpose of guns, according to antis

O

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
In talking to antis, I find they do not think police officers should be armed off-duty. Their concern about it isn't about lack of training. It is about the purpose of guns.

That purpose is NOT protecting the life of the officer (which would make it reasonable to carry off-duty) and NOT about protecting others. It is to COMPEL OBEDIENCE and that's why they oppose off-duty carry. Now, a cop's gun does serve a dual purpose, self-defense and intimidation of others. By that logic, antis feel that individuals not acting under the authority of the state have no business carrying a weapon which can be used for intimidating and controlling others.

Any suggestions on how to argue with that kind of logic?
 
:rolleyes:
It is to COMPEL OBEDIENCE and that's why they oppose off-duty carry.
Click to expand...
Yes, carried firearms are to compel obedience. Obedience with the command/statement "Stop grabbing/touching/hitting/taking my ________" when used in response to a criminal attack. Not everyone can afford a personal police officer to protect them at every hour of the day, nor are police officers stationed on every street corner, in every alley, or in every dwelling.

Kharn
 
Usually, I handle that logic by saying that it is my preference that EVERYBODY be armed... then it wouldn't be intimidating to see a weapon, and alot of crime would be deterred...
 
"Waffen sind demnach Gegenstände, die ihrem Wesen nach dazu bestimmt sind, zur Befolgung der Gesetze gegen Bürger eingesetzt zu werden."

"Weapons are therefore objects, which from their essence are intended to be used against citizens to adhere to the law."

Origin: From an official draft for a new German gun law, 2001(!).

With fascist ideas like that, neither the Reds nor the Greens will ever get a vote from me or my family.
(BTW, less than five weeks until our next elections. ;) )
 
Compel Obedience... isn't that the intent of every single gun control law they try to push?

Hello Kettle, this is the pot, YOU'RE BLACK...

Sheesh... :rolleyes:
 
the logic i would use is that even though an officer is 'off-duty', he still is burdened with the responsibility of acting as an officer, which can include stopping crimes from occuring. it would be a terrible thing if an unarmed off duty police officer could offer no help to a person being attacked by a group of people.
we all have a civic duty to ensure that harm does not come to people whenever we can stop it. that does not come from wearing a badge. it comes from being human.
therefore, we who are able should all go armed into our communities to ensure the safety of ourselves, our families and complete strangers.
 
By that logic, antis feel that individuals not acting under the authority of the state have no business carrying a weapon which can be used for intimidating and controlling others.
Click to expand...
Ah, idealists stuck in reality....

Discounting any need for protection from those who are unable to understand much less obey the law, such as aggressive dogs, pumas, etc., the argument presumes that everyone in the society is willingly compliant to its laws, and therein lies the fallacy.

Unless and until those who do not comply with the society's laws are effectively and irreversibly removed from it, their idealistic premise is fatuous.

Not that their logic hasn't been tried before. One such experiment ended in April, 1945, and another ended on December 25, 1991.

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
 
...individuals not acting under the authority of the state have no business carrying a weapon which can be used for intimidating and controlling others...
Click to expand...

It's to be expected. People with no grasp of metaphysics cannot hold a true political philosophy. So all they understand is raw power.

Where is the distinction between force and violence?
Between unjust aggression and just response?
Between natural law and positive law?

On a much more basic level that even these pedestrian dopes should understand, where do they draw the distinction between criminal subject and victim object? Then again even grammatical analysis is beyond them.

Oleg, I'm afraid you're dealing with the unteachable, there isn't much of a response that could do any good. They are the intellectually irrecuperable - no doubt in receipt of a nice little bachelor's degree, which makes them feel educated and therefore above receiving further enlightenment.

Best,

Romulus
 
Oleg,

Many jurisdictions require that their peace officers act in their official capacity even when off duty if a situation requiring official intervention occurs in their presense. So technically many officers are never off duty when in the boundries of their jurisdiction.

The firearm that a peace officer carries is not to compell obediance. It is there to protect the officer and the citizens of his jurisdiction from those who would do violence against them. The object that a peace officer carries that compells obediance is his or her commission. This is usually on the officer in the form of a badge and credentials. This is ALL that is required by law in most juridictions to compell obediance. Most statutes have a provision requiring a person to identify themselves as a peace officer before his/her commands are enforceable. No place I know of issues a firearm for identification purposes.

One of the things the antis you are dealing with probably aren't aware of, is that in many places, even here in anti-gun Illinois, a private citizen has almost the same powers of arrest as a peace officer. Here if a crime is committed in front of a private citizen, he or she has the same powers to arrest the criminal as if they were a sworn peace officer. This includes the same provisions on the use of force. While a private citizen has these same powers, they aren't covered by the civil torts act which would protect them from civil liability if they acted wrongly. About the only thing a private citizen can't do is make an arrest for a crime he didn't witness. In other words, if your neighbor came up and said Joe Dirtbag down the road broke into my house and stole the kids piggy bank, you couldn't go down to Joe Dirtbags house and drag him up to the jail. But if you were walking by your neighbors house, and saw Joe Dirtbag kick in the door and go inside and walk out with the kids piggy bank in hand, you could take old Joe Dirtbag into custody and haul him off to the jail....and use the same force a peace officer could legally use to affect the arrest.

So tell your anti-friends that peace officers get their authority from the constitution of the state in which they work and that that authority is in the form of a commission or warrant appointing them as peace officers...visible to the public in the form of a badge and credentials. The firearm and other weapons the officer carries are tools to protect him and the public. If the firearm was there to compell obediance, we'd be shooting jaywalkers and shoplifters......

Jeff
 
I think that we are talking about the difference between theory and practice. Some cops do use their guns for intimidation, most don't. TV cops do that all the time, real-life peace officers have better methods. Guess which variety the antis know more intimately...the "Lethal Weapon" bozos!
 
You may be right. It's very possible that the antis you are dealing with are of the type who would only respond to the threat of lethal force themselves. As you are aware, some people are more reasonable then others.

Sounds like these antis are a couple rungs up on the force continuance ladder above Presence . Tell them that reasonable people respond to presence it's only the unreasonable/uncivilized/emotionally disturbed that require more force.

Jeff
 
Thanks for the picture, Stahl

Those Nazis were some snappy dressers, it's a shame that our govt can't outfit it's thugs uniforms like that. If we are going to be a police state, couldn't we at least be a well dressed police state?

Oleg,

I think that you might be worrying about the wrong thing. Although they might say that obedience is their end goal, I think that it is only a means. Their end is a feeling of security that would be provided by that order, which obedience to the law might bring. At the end of the day, they are animals with a survival instinct for them and their offspring, that's where you must strike.

Why do you think that the "for the children" garbage stuff works so well?

Go after the democrats (women, younger people, minorities) and scare them to sleep with visions of Ashcroft forming a totalitarian police state with his copy of the bible in hand, unless, of course, they can prevent it by being armed.
 
So I assume she would be against officers using police cars for personal business. Mentioned this one to my wife the other day.

What are the reasons for allowing it, that it provides a deterrent effect. But isn't this just intimidation of a different sort?

Personally I'm split on the issue. I don't believe we should allow different classes of citizens to have different rules. What's right for the cop off the clock, should be good enough for all lawabiding citizens all the time.
 
By that logic, antis feel that individuals not acting under the authority of the state have no business carrying a weapon which can be used for intimidating and controlling others.
Click to expand...
Any full grown man always has a weapon that can be used to intimidate and control me. His bare hands. Why shouldn't I have the ability to control him, if need be?
 
There is a lot more respect to the judge when the bailiffs are armed. A visible firearm carries respect.

As Al Capone said, "You get more respect with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word."
 
Off Duty Police

I'm not a law enforcement officer but I sure like the fact that they are armed and out in the community when off duty. Seems to me that you hear/see alot of,"Off duty officer______ effected an arrest of so and so doing such and such." alot.
Go boys in blue.:cool:
 
My opinion is most antis have at one point been bullies of some kind. They don't like the idea of smaller, weaker people being able to protect themselves from the likes of them.

Just my opinion.

It seems to me the famous people that are the most vocal anti-gun people are generally by far the most obnoxious.
 
If a gun is used to compel obeidience, then we have a police state and not a democratic republic. You really don't have the right to vote then, except on the whim of the police. It really is an illusion. That such people are allowed to vote is dangerous, more so than illegal aliens.
This is not how a gun should be used in any situation.
In an emergency situation, people do need to be working together or at least get out of the way, but in such situations, people can be too shocked to listen. A gun will never improve that, but will rather get people to freeze up. The truth is that in such situations, people will listen to whoever acts like they have authority.
To turn it around, what if obeidience is not forthcoming, what is the appropriate response by the officer? To shoot? That would be an execution.
Kind of harsh for a crowd not dispersing, or for people not clearing out of a burning building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top