You're viewing a single thread.
Here in Denmark a crazed man attacked the Fields shopping center with a couple of hunting rifles. The first time something like this happened in a very long time.
Danish armed police had a quick response time. Loads of dudes with in full body armour and MP-5s guarding every main exit while other guys went inside to clear out the civilians and hunt the shooter down.
The sniper equipped helicopter circling the shopping center spotted the shooter coming out of a service door and he subsequently got caught.
I think in total only 5 people died, which was from the short period when the guy started shooting.
All the right wing gun addicts from America were chest thumping and table banging, shouting all over social media that this somehow was an example that gun laws don't work. However, considering this happened within a short period after the school shooting in America, all it truly did was make American police look like a bad joke.
As much as ACAB, I can admit that sometimes an armed response is necessary. It sounds like you danes have a well trained force, rather than some 6 week academy psychos with a hard-on for violence.
Cops aren't really bastards in Denmark. Oh sure, you'll find anti establishment types everywhere; there certainly is no love for the police in Christiania. However, the overall opinion of Danish citizens towards the police is positive. In Denmark people genuinely feel safer seeing a policeman on the street.
Police in Copenhagen are also friendly; unless they're in the middle of something, you can, as a citizen or a tourist, walk up to one and ask them questions.
Police do carry pistols in Denmark, but someone just starting their career in law enforcement isn't immediately given a gun until they've had a good job record and proper training for a few years. The amount of paperwork a cop has to go through for even suggesting they'll pull their gun is staggering.
It isn't any more complicated than that ACAB is an obvious
US-centricexaggeration and that there are police forces out there that doesn't suffer from the same systemic problems that according* to American media is pandemic in their country.ACAB is an obvious US-centric exaggeration
Started by working class British punks no less!
I stand corrected on that part then, it was wrong assumption based on the fact it seems like 99,9% of all negative news in regards to police I see is from USA. I'll strike it out.
Well tbf our cops do kinda suck a lot and we have some glaring systemic issues with our policing system lol, it's not like the assumption is unreasonable!
It's maybe not unreasonable, but as someone living in Norway with only neutral/positive experience with police, it certainly rubs me the wrong way when people speak of it as if it is an universal truth. Especially as American online culture inevitably affects Norwegian kids' view of society, which is very different from the American society.
Oh for sure, you guys actually train yours!
Yeah and that's really the core issue. Cops aren't evil people but the US policing context is toxic AF
Yeah it's a whole systemic thing, frankly there isn't really "one issue," but a multitude all working together. Stuff like no knock raids, qualified immunity, even just "one's tendency to stick up for one's friends" which we all have and we all do, but when you're the police force covering crimes it's a lot different than me clocking my friend in to work when he's running 5min late and doesn't want to be fired about it.
But as you say there are indeed plenty of good cops, though the "good ones" can't even do anything about the bad ones and so they end up being complicit or fired, making them "also kinda bad" or "no longer cops." That is another part of the phrase and why it's not "SCAB or MCAB, Some/most Cops Are Bastards," tbf.
It is a sweeping generalization, though, and as such it can never be 100% accurate by nature. Sweeping generalizations are too...general.
Personally I'd like more focus on the politicians who allow this system to be the way it is than the people working in the system (of course, you have to do both)
Police in the U.S. carry firearms at all times. Even those that get sent to assist with mental health checks, pack a firearm on their hip. Which means there's an implicit threat of force if you do not comply.
So, ACAB, at least in the U.S.
If children can't understand that U.S. police are not the same as Norwegian police, just by that above difference, I don't know what to tell you. Track their socials better, I guess. There's a ton of far more toxic shit coming out of this country than ACAB.
There's a ton of far more toxic shit coming out of this country than ACAB.
Of course, the worst influences affects adults/politics instead. That doesn't mean all other issues should just be ignored though.
If children can't understand that U.S. police are not the same as Norwegian police, just by that above difference, I don't know what to tell you. Track their socials better, I guess.
That really isn't how it work though, and the saying isn't AACAB...
Okay well then educate your children about where that saying comes from and why some people feel that way instead of being pissed that people and other countries have different views of police than you do?
The saying started in the 1920s when police were brought in to bust up strikes, in the UK.
So why are you blaming Americans anyway?
Okay well then educate your children about where that saying comes from and why some people feel that way instead of being pissed that people and other countries have different views of police than you do?
Sure, let me go around the whole country of Norway to remind every kid/teen browsing the Internet that most of what they read are about a completely different society, and that all those people speaking in absolutes are in fact wrong...
I'm not really "pissed" about it, I'm get slightly annoyed the few times it pops up but that's about it.
So why are you blaming Americans anyway? ... blaming Americans for what?
US <> world
US is less than greater than world? Which one of us just had a stroke?
I believe it's meant to represent a distance.
Wherever it originated, it's the US cops that seem the most obvious and appropriate target for ACAB. I hate the acronym because while all police forces in the Western world seem to have some systemic issues, theyre not all as extreme as in the US. Also, it literally isn't all cops, it's the system they work in, so CAB would be both shorter and more accurate
It’s “all cops are bastards” for a few reasons.
First, ACAB because the good ones get rooted out if they don’t both turn a blind eye to their bastard peers misdeeds, or in some cases actively help them covered up. Good cops don’t stay cops for long.
Second, only bastards are attracted to that job. The power, the impunity, the unearned respect. Anyone who wants to be a cop is either already a bastard, or the few that aren't are stupid and misinterpreted the obvious situation, and they get rooted out very quickly. What kind of person looks at policing in America and decides that they want to be a part of that? A bastard, that kind
Third, “the thin blue line”. The true meaning of this is that there is a thin blue line that police are never supposed to cross, that being snitching on other officers.
The police (in the USA) are their own entity, a cohesive group. Time after time we see it on the news, the police abusing their power, killing people, forced confessions, torture, racism, misogyny, theft through civil asset forfeiture, rape. Sure, maybe there is a cop who hasn’t personally done these things, but they are a part of the group that does. They are 100% complicit, even though they would be putting themselves at risk to expose or protest these actions.
I think it has been long accepted that ACAB is in reference to the police of the USA. While police misconduct itself certainly isn’t limited to the yanks, it’s so overwhelming here that there really is no nuance to this situation.
In the USA, policing itself is corrupt. The idea that a member of this corrupt institution could be good is almost a paradox. Here in the US, there is no such thing as a “good cop”. “Good” and “cop” are mutually exclusive.
I noted another poster who.was from Norway complaining that his kids have picked up ACAB despite being from a place with a markedly better police force than the US. I'm in NZ and the same thing has happened with my kids. You may be just talking about the US context but the Internet is borderless
It's exactly because our police are a cult that we need armed citizens.
Yup. That's why you never see public police brutality in the US. Couldn't get away with that with all the armed citizens around.
Oh wait, you just film it and post in on tiktok instead.
Guess the guns are just for looking cool in walmart and shooting kids at schools afterall.
Or maybe that's a good indicator that people aren't inclined to pull out their guns when they don't know the whole story ya fuckin genius.
Has there ever been someone armed that has stopped police abuse? I don't think I've ever heard of a case like that.
The black panthers routinely showed up armed and arguably had that effect. Ironically, this then led to more gun control laws being put in place.
One example: on May 30, 2020 in Minneapolis, during the protests after George Floyd killing, some police were driving around the streets in an unmarked van, shooting at pedestrians at random without stopping. They later claimed they were shooting rubber bullets to "encourage" people to obey the curfew order. Of course, if you are the one being shot at in a drive by from a mystery van, you have no time to determine what kind of bullets are being fired... One pedestrian shot back! There is a video of it.
The guy was immediately arrested, miraculously without being shot to death in the process, and put on trial, but acquitted due to justifiable self-defense. The police did not drive around shooting randomly any more after that though. I see the guy even won a $1.5M lawsuit against the police now!
Nice job on actually finding an example. And it is a great one. I really don't want to diminish that.
But it feels like a rare case and I'm not a proof of concept.
Especially since the guy could have easily been killed
During the summer BLM protests, police were using excessive force constantly, shooting people in the head with rubber bullets/beanbags, beating people nearly to death, gassing everything... it was pure hatred from the thin blue line.
When protesters were calmly walking wearing their rifles, police were mysteriously real polite. Funny that.
When protesters were calmly walking wearing their rifles, police were mysteriously real polite. Funny that.
I see your point. But isn't that entire situation really fucked up? If that was a regular thing that's just civil war battle waiting to happen. This can't be the solution to the police problem.
You think the solution is to bend over and take it?
Maybe something inbetween?
A lone individual is just going to get themselves killed, and probably cause the police to arm themselves even more. Which would be extremely counter productive.
I’d also like to add that you don’t need fun to stop police brutality, and yet nobody is willing to stop it. Mostly because you’re just going to end up being the one police brutalitied in addition to the other guy.
I'm sure they don't like publishing results that aren't good for their goals.
Removed, rule 1. You were fine without the ad hominem attack.
Its not. No one needs armed citizen. All it leads to are the hundreds of shootings in your country. You need trained police and strict gun laws. Get rid of privately owned guns and the cops wont be scared everyone has a gun somewhere.
Yeah, it seems to me it's vicious circle. The American cops are super trigger happy because they think everyone has a gun which makes people trust the police less which makes the police more twitchy...
The lack of training and accountability is a major thing too though. I'm not discounting that.
Do you have "naturally dangerous" areas in your country? I'm a gun-control-but-not-ban Progressive, and my reasoning is that most of the towns I've lived have had wildlife issues that are only reasonable resolved by firearms. Our coyote breeds attack large pets, small children, and (rarely) adults. We are a free-range-chicken state (chickens must be allowed to run free). My last road, coyotes ran rampant hospitalizing my next door neighbors 100lb+ lab (he was huge). It's not safe to be out alone or in your woods at certain times of year. Not to mention the occasional black bear who usually runs away but sometimes charges... A coyote charged my wife once and her german shepherd fortunately scared it off without bloodshed.
In the last town I lived, we didn't have police, only mutual aid contracts. The mutual-aid department didn't have animal control. Their standard answer to a dangerous predator running amok was "shoot it".
Now... I firmly believe our police is way over-financed, and think the last thing we need is MORE police officers. ACAB and all that jazz. Being honest, I have little respect for police in general, if marginally more than some on my side. So assuming you have areas likes that, how do you resolve it? The last answer I was given was "everyone should move to cities". Needless to say, I was not amused.
I'd love to be convinced that zero-guns-allowed-for-nonhunters at the national level is physically possible in the US, but I just can't.
How about zero guns in populated areas? How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons? How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios? How about requiring a reason to own? How about fewer places to get them? How about more expensive ammo? How about just an order of magnitude less?
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
How about zero guns in populated areas?
I've argued for that before, differentiation of regions. It went over like a fart in church with literally everyone. The gun control crowd seem to think "rednecks will figure it out or should move to the city", and the gun rights crowd thinks "cities are more dangerous than the country". I've seen knife restrictions in big cities, so firearm restrictions seem more reasonable. Many countries require guns to be locked in cases instead of worn on the person. In cities, that seems pretty reasonable.
How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons?
I've always fought for that. But this isn't "no guns at all", which is what I was asking about. Most of your suggestions are not "no guns at all" and seem worthy of discussion.
How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios?
For me, this is a nonstarter. If someone is at their house and dealing with a coyote attacking family or pets, a semiautomatic rifle is the best tool. If they are using their firearm preventatively, that would be a shotgun. If they need a firearm while travelling and not hunting or anything, semi-automatic pistol. I just named basically every kind of gun somebody wants to ban. Well, that and guns that look especially scary, which I think is stupid. We already limit the guns types to what is useful, and I'll be the first to fight for keeping machineguns out of civilian hands.
I'm also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren't contributors to gun violence.
How about fewer places to get them?
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they're fairly difficult to get. Should the Fed try to mimic our laws and policies? That doesn't really seem to be the problem to me, though. If people want firearms and they're legal to purchase, they'll get them whether there's 1 store in their county or Walmart sells them.
How about more expensive ammo?
That seems worth discussing. I have some concerns; unless there's a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm. A person with a gun and no regular practice/training is like a dull knife. It sounds less dangerous for all of 5 seconds before it leads to some accidental tragedy. I'm actually a believer in requiring con-ed including target-shooting for someone who wants to own a gun. A gun that shoots its target can be horrible. A gun that misses its target IS horrible.
How about just an order of magnitude less?
An order of magnitude less what? Less ammo? How does that reduce gun violence? A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that? I do think there's way too many guns in the US. And I think a lot of people own guns that shouldn't, regardless of the gun. I'm a strong believer in background check and psych check to own a gun.
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
We don't have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way. My not liking cops is why I do like access to firearms. They're simply not qualified or trustworthy in many real-world cases where a firearm solves a problem without ever being pointed at a human being.
the gun rights crowd thinks “cities are more dangerous than the country”.
Maybe we focus too much on the concerns of relatively few gun owners and too little on the victims. Bringing a weapon into a city creates more risk for more innocent victims, and that’s not ok. Even for people who believe they’re a “good guy with a gun”, the reality is they’re making things worse
But this isn’t “no guns at all”, which is what I was asking about.
This has to be part of it. Anti-regulation people will always claim gun control can’t work because of the huge number of guns already there, legal or not. But you can make things better than before, you can make more serious consequences even for illegal weapons
I’m also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren’t contributors to gun violence.
But a lot of those accessories make mass shootings easier. While one innocent victim getting shot is a tragedy, it’s not as bad as 4 or 20, or any larger number. A bump stock makes it easier to shoot faster, a larger magazine makes it easier to shoot more. Both make it harder for a potential additional victim to find an escape.
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they’re fairly difficult to get.
It has to. In my state guns are also harder to get and that’s reflected in much lower gun ownership. However there’s only so much you can do at a state level when someone can visit a Walmart over the border. My state also has regulations on alcohol, where they limit the number of store that can sell. Why is alcohol more regulated than deadly weapons?
How about more expensive ammo? unless there’s a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm.
True, but there’s a vast quantity of illegal guns already out there, and you can’t control illegal sales. You can make those more expensive to use, and maybe some won’t
A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that?
That’s a damn good question, but you can’t give up without trying. This really turns into a long term issue: are current controls increasing the number out there or decreasing them? iF we make new guns harder to get in fewer places more expensive to use and with more serious consequences for recklessly endangering people, maybe that reduces the number of weapons continually added. Maybe that will make a difference over time
We don’t have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way.
I understand the urge and there are certainly good reasons, yet I don’t think the statistics really bear that out. For all the news about police shootings, the vast majority never do. For all the news about police brutality and racism, almost all are normal people trying to do their best. At least some police environments seem to bring out the worst in people rather than the best. That’s what needs to change.
Of the people I know who are cops, I would definitely trust them to help. We can change things to encourage those people, encourage professionalism, ensure they can use tools other than their weapon , ensure they are mentally healthy enough to handle the responsibility. Yes, I definitely blame unions but maybe differently than some: I do actually like that police unions stand up for the rights of accused officers, if justice is upheld. But where’s the outrage for the damage a bad cop does to the entire profession? But I never hear about a focus on professionalism and safety like other unions do. Where is the police union on encouraging training, professional development, workshops on judgement and de escalation? Where is the focus on better serving your “customers”? Police can become a trusted authority that improve public safety, and that will help more people than “every one for themselves”
Do you think a cop is any more a "good guy with a gun"?
Maybe I’m an optimist because I think they can be a good guy. I’ve met several idealistic candidates start their career and believe they did start as good guys. My variation is more that it’s a screwed up system with contradicting requirements, an us vs them environmen t and a large population of disillusioned officers reinforcing their own worst habits. It seems difficult to remain a good guy.
But I’m an optimist who thinks even the current system could be fixed.
Even look at the hierarchy of professionalism: we read stories about local sheriffs with little standards and background, but state troopers have higher standards, higher training, pride that they’re a cut above. Then you have the FBI with yet higher standards, higher pride in their professionalism, and fewer stories of corruption. We have examples right here that there can be well trained officers. Every characteristic that has gone wrong has a potentially positive variation.
Maybe we focus too much on the concerns of relatively few gun owners and too little on the victims. Bringing a weapon into a city creates more risk for more innocent victims, and that’s not ok
I tend to agree with this. I really wonder what kind of regulations could be put into place and enforced without abuse by police (who ignore guns on their friends' hips but use it as an opportunity to take out minorities accused of being in gangs)
This has to be part of it.
"Nobody in the entire country having any gun for any reason" is a necessary part of any form of gun control? I don't think I agree with that as it seems a bit hyperbolic. Or am I misunderstanding your context?
But a lot of those accessories make mass shootings easier. While one innocent victim getting shot is a tragedy, it’s not as bad as 4 or 20, or any larger number
Heat compensators make mass-shootings easiers? Recoil compensators? What they do is make collateral (or self-) damage harder. I DON'T understand the bills that come after heat compensators one bit, but I also struggle to see how recoil compensators are problem-contributors. If someone were shooting up my building, as terrible as that would be, I'd prefer they had a recoil compensator. They would be less likely to hit more people, while not actually being more likely to hit their target.
It has to. In my state guns are also harder to get and that’s reflected in much lower gun ownership
When I'm in a "police abuse of power" group and see people looking to drastically increase police power (and/or federal police power, since I live in a fairly left-leaning state as it is) I get scared regardless of the topic. You also point to alcohol - but I think that analogy fails because there's somewhat limited federal regulation on sale of alcohol as long as you're not selling to minors. My (again, "liberal") state lets towns assign liquor licenses basically as they see fit, and you can buy alcohol on almost every street corner.
For efficacy, you bring up "when someone can visit a Walmart over the border". This doesn't seem workable to me. It's not that there's a Walmart in the next state, it's that you can buy a gun in the next state without training, a background check, or any other validation. I'd actually use this as an example of the "throw paint at the wall and hope" form of legislating my side does on gun control that we will not do on any other topic. We KNOW what will work. We can't get what will work to pass, so we spend months talking about other things that both won't pass and won't be effective. What will work is to stop the wrong people from buying guns by making them show they're not the wrong person before they do.
True, but there’s a vast quantity of illegal guns already out there, and you can’t control illegal sales. You can make those more expensive to use, and maybe some won’t
How much more expensive? Are we talking $20/bullet? That won't stop violent crimes or most mass-shootings. Are you talking $200/bullet? That's going to prevent legal gun owners from actually knowing how to use their gun. Remember, far more people die from gun accidents and suicides than homicides. Raising the price of the bullet is unlikely to decrease homicides, will not affect suicides, and is likely to increase gun accidents drastically.
A homicide takes just one bullet. Practice and training takes thousands. The increase of price will disproportionally affect the desire to be a responsible gun owner over the reduction of gun violence altogether. If anything, increase the price of guns while offering waivers for a first gun of someone who has been background-checked and lives in certain "right to farm"-style communities.
Side 2 of this. A lot of people make their own ammo. Not exactly hard. It's currently more expensive than buying ammo, but home-made bullets are not unlikely if that changes. They ARE more likely to do spectacularly bad things in general. And then you could try to regulate the powder (only ammo-specific ingredient), but any criminal and many DIYers could make their own powder with readily available ingredients.
I understand the urge and there are certainly good reasons, yet I don’t think the statistics really bear that out. For all the news about police shootings, the vast majority never do
I'll leave police accountability questions to everyone else in this group that I am sure will come running to my aid. That said, how do you suggest small towns without a police force budget for police? Let's say you live in a town that has had zero gun violence in the last decade and has not found the need for a police force (I did for several years!). Now you seem to be suggesting they budget out salaries for enough officers to replace all the people who use firearms to protect their farms from wildlife. What would be a reasonable response time for those police if an animal starts wreaking havok and killing pets/livestock? When I lived in that town, the Fire (only local service) response time was still 15 minutes.
Not a "gun rights" point, but I'll make it. Police are a hammer. They do a few things VERY well. But no matter their training, they will always be inferior at everything else. In the US (and many other countries), we use police for those other things anyway. With all due respect, in no reality is an armed man with a gun the right first person to de-escalate a verbal domestic dispute. Paramedics deal with situations that start and/or become more volitile than police on a regular basis, and most refuse to carry a firearm even if they are allowed.
A lot of people make their own ammo
I do understand this is reasonably doable, but it also seems like a niche skill for someone really into their hobby. Gun nerds are less likely to be careless or to hurt anyone. Aside from preppers, I very much doubt this is common among problematic gun owners
Police are a hammer. They do a few things VERY well
Police don’t need to be a hammer. They don’t need to focus on hammering skills above all else. While they sometimes do need to be, they need the judgement to correctly find those times, they need to understand better options when it’s not those times, and they do need to understand when compassion/caring is the answer. Police also need the pride in ther role to hold each other to the Hodges’s standards, otherwise they’re a hooligan with a badge. Police forces should focus on “public safety”, not “law enforcement”. I understand that’s a lot of “should”
I do understand this is reasonably doable, but it also seems like a niche skill for someone really into their hobby
Sure, but we're discussing a world where ammo is made artificially scarce. At the height of "wtf is going on with weed", 1/3 of all pot-smokers I knew were growers, and some were hardcore at it. It's far easier to make ammo than grow decent weed. And unlike weed, we're talking serious logistics problems trying to ban DIY ammo.
I agree it's not common now.
Police don’t need to be a hammer. They don’t need to focus on hammering skills above all else. While they sometimes do need to be, they need the judgement to correctly find those times, they need to understand better options when it’s not those times, and they do need to understand when compassion/caring is the answer
The most effective police forces in the world are in countries where they generally go unarmed... but I daresay that movements like "defund the police" are looking for that same thing - a force of social workers with at least some logical separation from the guys-with-guns.
But that's not just about skills and the right employees, it's about the right list of responsibilities. And frankly, I think they've got enough on their plate they can't do to add animal control in areas where they currently don't do that anyway. If you look at other emergency services, they do one thing INCREDIBLY well. Then you have police that do a dozen things terribly. And often times when they are called to do one of the peaceful things, they escalate the situation due to their training in others of the things. I am not so jaded to think that the world doesn't need SWAT teams occasionally. But I don't think the training that leads to SWAT teams and the training to deescalate a loud drunk are remotely the same.
NZ has strict gun controls but guns are allowed for pest control and hunting. There's a lot of room between that kind of control and "everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence".
The person I was responding to was talking about 100% total gun bans. Just want to make sure you realize this. Nothing you said disagrees with my take on gun control. If you intended to agree, that's cool (but rare online ;) )
Looking at this wiki page, NZ seems to have the same kind of gun laws my home state has, with a fairly similar ownership rate (and it looks like NZ averages 5 guns per owner?). As a general rule, I wouldn't use the term "strict gun controls" if a country's laws match any US state. We get a little crazy here with our Second Amendment.
There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.
100%, except I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed with AR-15s. People keep trying to ban them in the US while deadlier weapons get a pass. And concealed carry is sorta funny. In my state, all carry is concealed carry because open carry scares non-gun-owners. You can basically have your gun license challenged in my state if you open carry because it can be used to argue you're not in the right mind to own a gun if you carry openly knowing it'll scare people.
Sorry, just assumed you were arguing a stricter line on gun control. My fault for not being more careful. I agree with you about
Thats not possible in the US. There are more guns than people here, and gun culture is too engrained in.
Nothings impossible
What about countries that do have strict gun laws and only relatively recently started having shootings? What changed between then and now across the West?
Which countries are those? Countries with strict gun laws have less gun violence.
And yet gun violence is growing across Europe despite few if any changes to gun law.
No, it isn't. Gun violence is down a cross Europe except for in Sweden: https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/njc.25.1.4
No one needs armed citizen.
You'll learn the error of your ways. There's no such thing as end of history, and all absolutes, including this one, are tried one after another again and again.
That said, American police is crap.
Go train the police then. Let me know if they listen to you. Let me know if it goes fairly. Afterwards face reality. This isn't Europe. We already have a police force cult and nobody is stopping them without force. Maybe you'd be right if you were starting a brand new country somewhere without displacing any natives and kept a strong border to stop smugglers.
What does getting into a shootout with police solve?
That many fewer police. Works best if I can leave behind my reasons.
You do know that there isn't a finite number of police and if you kill a few, they will hire more, right?
Maybe we'll be left with an essence of what used to be if we dilute the crowd enough.
If everyone kept killing cops and suddenly nobody would want to be a cop.
I also liked my bosses idea. Strap a paintball gun to a drone. Then every time a cop pulls someone over in this notorious speed trap you start shouting the cop with paintballs and fly away. Maybe then they’d find something more productive to do.
So you're going to start killing cops now, right? When's your first shooting spree?
I mean if that's the solution, why haven't you taken the initiative?
Otherwise, this sure sounds like some armchair general talk.
I'm not saying it's a good strategy, I'm just explaining how it would work.
Please stop fedposting.
The perfect recipe for lots of unnecessary violence.
"unnecessary"
Necessary violence. You think they're just gonna pack up and leave with an "oh right we're the bad guys. I can totally see that now."?
Of course, the only solution then is escalation. You can make it, all it costs is are a few good people. Right?
I'll literally take the fall myself. I don't want to live in these conditions.
Cults are small. The police are much more dangerous than a cult. Don't be afraid to use harsher terms against them, they're a religion!
Eyyy
Cop cult bad! Gun cult good! Ugg has spoken!
Cops have a lower frequency of good people than the sum of everyone else. Wanna know what makes the difference? Cops are specifically people who sought out that power. This also applies to politicians, judges, and HOA board members.
Are all those poor black kids in the US military evil, too, then?
Permanently Deleted
Romania, the country that's not even shengen yet (meaning you can't cross the border without being checked by customs, EXACTLY BECAUSE it's fucked)? Lol, you really showed Denmark xD
Also saying America is doing "better" at combating crime is only true if you want to compare yourself to war torn counties. The US has a comparable amount of people in prison to China. COMPARABLE to a country where you get arrested for looking the wrong way. Yes, China has more prisoners, but it also has 4 times the population! America is failing spectacularly at keeping its monopoly of violence as a state. When a civilian shooting happens in the rest of the 1st and 2nd world it's a tragedy that shakes the country, meanwhile in America half the population feels nothing, because it happens so often.
You're right I should pick on the far right inbred country of Europe, France.
Yeah, because america has no far right problem. Oh wait. Your fascists have been an inspiration for our fascists. America is a failed state and people like you want to keep it that way.
European right is still left of the US.
Stop embarrassing yourself 🤣 what's next, polar bears in Sicily?
Europe likes to shit on the US because of people like you making excuses and letting problems in America continue being problems.
Tell me you know nothing about Europe, the EU or the Schengen area without stating so verbatim.