Onifre (quoting Granny in the inner box) writes:
Granny writes:
By not routinely arming cops, by not allowing citizens to own handguns and by not having capital punishment, we minimise the loss of innocent lives.
Yeah, I agree with that. But again, who gives a shit? All of those systems are in place and operate in America. My point in this thread has always been that it's inconsistent to select one of those systems to oppose while at the same time supporting two of the other ones.
You can read back to the beginning, people opposed to the death penalty but for armed cops. People against the death penalty but support the ownership of guns by citizens. It is inconsistent to say the least.
And later Onifre adds:
If I got shot by a beat cop, I do not feel cops should stop carrying guns. If I was shot by a civilian I do not think all civilians should stop carrying guns. And as ridiculous as the scenario sounds, if I was wrongfully executed I do not think all death penalties should stop. I still find reasons to keep all of these systems functioning regardless of their flaws.
If we divide the innocent deaths problem like this, then we can treat each subproblem with a separate solution. The first problem is solved by arming cops with non-lethal "bullets", a technology problem that may be possible soon. The second problem is most likely intractable because the citizens will always need a way to revolt against their government - we have to live with it. The third problem is the one most easily solved: just stop doing it.
Just because two of the problems cannot be solved easily, doesn't mean that the one of them that is easy to solve shouldn't solved. One size (living with it) does not fit all.
In conjunction with the 1st problem, there is also the High-Speed Chase problem which may result in collateral damages and death to innocents - this may also be replaced with a technological solution of corralling the suspect more gently.
The second problem may be approached in the manner of the old Western saloon, where you check your guns at the door before you are allowed inside. Certain inner city areas could be declared a saloon in this manner. Does this still maintain the citizenry's ability to revolt (provided they haven't already lost this ability*)?
So, yeah, I give a shit.
* IMHO it's too late - "they" have nuclear weapons, tanks & missiles
Edited by xongsmith, : The agony of clone-drop in the wrong place.
- xongsmith, 5.7d