-
Not really. And routinely is a pretty strong statement. One could well argue any militarisation of law enforcement is a direct result of gun ownership.
However, if police and civilians owning guns doesn't deter criminals from using guns when committing crimes, then it seems a stretch to think that police are deterred from murdering people just in case they have a gun. The flip side to that is that it seems unlikely that the police are currently somehow being held at bay by the fear of civilization gun ownership - which I think is the point you are trying to make, right?
hugo7-
One could well argue that but I'd disagree. I'd say further militarisation of the police force has far more to do with vested corporate interests and political dick swinging than it is a proportionate response to any legitimate threats of violence.
I'm not sure I understand your second point. Do you think that if somehow restrictions were placed on citizens' right to bear arms, police forces would willingly scale back their own use of deadly weapons?
spiderpie
2A arguments aside does anybody else find it difficult to advocate for the wholesale removal of guns from private ownership while the police routinely murder people in their communities and the government pursues a programme of further militarisation of law enforcement?
No doubt there are far too many weapons in the wrong hands in the US which leads directly to tragedies like yesterday's, but as long as the above conditions persist I don't know what the solution is. If anybody has been able to reconcile these issues I'd be interested to know how.