To be fair, hypocritically using guns to enforce gun control would probably be more effective than… hoping a piece of paper made in 1787 can protect the people’s freedom to self-defence from an oppressive government.
For ma fellow Canadians:
Also, we need tighter stapler control! Luckily the Mounties pulled a lethal Andrew Meyer on Robert Dziekanski before he could staple the cops to death.
Mostly due to my background, I tend to tell people that the only thing really wrong about the police and military in the end is that they are monopolized and that their pay is coercively taken from their “customers” and just about all other things come from that point and make what would otherwise be one of many defensive organizations, one of the most corrupted forces and damaging as well for the liberties of all mankind. The fact that they are basically told from the get go that they are what protect the rights and freedom of their fellow man is just another bit of brainwashed shit.
Just a bit on my background: I was born into a military family and did six years in myself before leaving that service honorably (essentially meaning they aren’t hunting me down).
Gun control isn’t the problem – in a free society all property would be privately owned, and many property owners would have strict rules about guns, as would I.
The “divine right of governments” fallacy is the problem, same as always.
I have long thought that police should be required to give up their guns when on duty, but be allowed the ability to quickly deputize willing passers-by. The cops themselves would be unable to apply force, but instead would need to be able to persuade locals to do it, with potentially cooler heads and more familiarity with suspects.
Imagine a cop asking a neighbor of a suspect to help apprehend a wanted man. The neighbor would probably be much more likely to say something like “officer, let me talk to him.” followed by “Hey Bob! You’re in a pickle here. Why don’t you come on out of the house and we’ll settle this peaceably.” Or he might offer another solution that a law enforcement officer might not think of or not be allowed to do on his own. Or the neighbor might know the charge is bullshit and not go along with it.
Not total anarchy, I know, but I think a step in the right direction.
I always thought it was ironic that those who were Individualist would allow the elite to exist, but never rule, while those who claim to be egalitarian and hate the elites, want big government, who are always ruled by the elites(I understand some egalitarians hate large government, but this is the minority).
I’m pro-elitism in the sense that I think everybody to strive the best they can and better themselves. Be strong in your convictions and steadfast in your self-esteem and self-assurance, but don’t be a condescending douchebag.
Instead of not having guns, it would be better if the police and military just went away.
“When I hear the argument that ‘only the police and military should have guns!’, I love to ask, ‘But if only they had guns, why would they need them?’
The cognitive dissonance is deafening as they sputter out that police would need guns, because criminals would still have them.”
Actually the anti-gun guy in the cartoon could be pro-national socialst because the national socialists in Germany in the 1930’s believed that only the military and police should have guns.
NAILED AGAIN! they should call Angry Josh “The Carpenter”.
great article, great comments all around.
interesting Hybrid system Ron! kinda like “citizen nullification”. all the justice you love from jury nullification with half the bureaucracy. the Brits actually had a similar system when a police force was first proposed to them: they accepted it *only* on condition that the police be forbidden to carry while the public carry freely. the cops could have arsenals for “public emergencies” but had to keep them locked up, which cut down on the “indisciminate” violence that happens with the free-ranging armed thugs.
“When I hear the argument that “only the police and military should have guns!”, I love to ask, “But if only they had guns, why would they need them?”
The cognitive dissonance is deafening as they sputter out that police would need guns, because criminals would still have them.”
Do you only talk to stupid people? The police shouldn’t have them, either. The armed forces need them to deal with other states who aren’t necessarily as happy and friendly as you, like those National Socialist types. If you care to solve that problem without violence, good luck to you – and I mean that. But I don’t see it happening.
Nice try, though.
Speaking of which:
“Actually the anti-gun guy in the cartoon could be pro-national socialst because the national socialists in Germany in the 1930’s believed that only the military and police should have guns.”
I’m English. Thanks for implicitly calling me a Nazi.
“Do you only talk to stupid people? The police shouldn’t have them, either. The armed forces need them to deal with other states who aren’t necessarily as happy and friendly as you, like those National Socialist types. If you care to solve that problem without violence, good luck to you – and I mean that. But I don’t see it happening.”
Andy, are you suggesting that there are any governments that use their police and armed forced responsibly?
“Andy, are you suggesting that there are any governments that use their police and armed forced responsibly?”
That is a very problematic question to answer. I would like to say “Yes, by and large, I think mine does”. But then my country was involved in the Iraq war and despite knowing Iraqi civilians who supported the war, I would still reject it being a responsible use of force. And furthermore, the recent G20 riots have given plenty of examples of irresponsible use of force by the police. I could come up with countless other examples.
My problem is that I have never been provided with a compelling alternative. That is why I have come here, on the recommendation of a friend, in search of one. I merely wished to address the oversimplifications I saw above. It’s all well and good to knock down straw dolls; I would like to see how the people here deal with actual arguments.
To conclude, I should clarify that I never deal in absolutes. I would never argue that my government uses force responsibly in all cases. I do, however, trust that it does more often than not. The “not” part of that equation still troubles me, however, and it is because of this that I seek alternative solutions. I am therefore not here to troll, or be an opponent. I am here to see if I can learn something.
In Norway our police doesn’t have guns, i’ve never seen a military personell in my life and i still have yet to see a gun outside the internet and TV O.o
That said we are also scraping the bottom of crime rates and homicides. gun crimes are probably some of the lowest in the world…. So gun bans might not be such a bad idea, but i can’t imagine that the United States would put down all their guns withing a short time period. getting rid of all guns would surely take centuries O_o
That’s far from a controlled experiment, Odin. There are so many other factors that make Norway different from the U.S. besides gun laws that can impact crime rates. I think the U.S. is one of the most imperialist countries and is one of the worst in terms of a police state, i.e. really cracking down on stupid victimless crimes which is fuel for the fire of real crimes. But that’s just one factor and there are countless others. The closest thing there is to a controlled experiment is comparing areas with intrusive gun laws to very similar areas (otherwise) but with far less restrictions. Just within the U.S., there are many states of both persuasions and there is no evidence statistically that gun laws are reducing crime anywhere and in fact some of the worst crime areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws, e.g. Washington D.C.
Dale, that is still not a controlled experiment in any way. You need to take two locations with similar crime levels to start with, then apply the gun laws to only one (that would be a weak experiment, do to the low sample size, but it would at least be a controlled one). The problem with your example is that the starting crime levels are unknown, so those states that have the restrictive gun laws might actually have experienced a decrease through passing them, while still being left with a higher amount of crimes even after the decrease.
Precisely. There is no world wide consistency with regards to gun laws and crime rate. Switzerland is a prime example. Thy have almost no weapons restrictions at all, they even let their soldiers take their issued assault rifle home with them after they leave the army! They have a higher rate of gun ownership per capita than almost any other country, more than even the United States! Yet their crime rate is almost non-existent.
To be fair, hypocritically using guns to enforce gun control would probably be more effective than… hoping a piece of paper made in 1787 can protect the people’s freedom to self-defence from an oppressive government.
For ma fellow Canadians:
Also, we need tighter stapler control! Luckily the Mounties pulled a lethal Andrew Meyer on Robert Dziekanski before he could staple the cops to death.
I love this one.
Mostly due to my background, I tend to tell people that the only thing really wrong about the police and military in the end is that they are monopolized and that their pay is coercively taken from their “customers” and just about all other things come from that point and make what would otherwise be one of many defensive organizations, one of the most corrupted forces and damaging as well for the liberties of all mankind. The fact that they are basically told from the get go that they are what protect the rights and freedom of their fellow man is just another bit of brainwashed shit.
Just a bit on my background: I was born into a military family and did six years in myself before leaving that service honorably (essentially meaning they aren’t hunting me down).
Gun control isn’t the problem – in a free society all property would be privately owned, and many property owners would have strict rules about guns, as would I.
The “divine right of governments” fallacy is the problem, same as always.
I have long thought that police should be required to give up their guns when on duty, but be allowed the ability to quickly deputize willing passers-by. The cops themselves would be unable to apply force, but instead would need to be able to persuade locals to do it, with potentially cooler heads and more familiarity with suspects.
Imagine a cop asking a neighbor of a suspect to help apprehend a wanted man. The neighbor would probably be much more likely to say something like “officer, let me talk to him.” followed by “Hey Bob! You’re in a pickle here. Why don’t you come on out of the house and we’ll settle this peaceably.” Or he might offer another solution that a law enforcement officer might not think of or not be allowed to do on his own. Or the neighbor might know the charge is bullshit and not go along with it.
Not total anarchy, I know, but I think a step in the right direction.
Brilliant!
Doesn’t Angry Josh have any friends that aren’t statist fatheads?
Dan
“Doesn’t Angry Josh have any friends that aren’t statist fatheads?”
Sure, but those conversations wouldn’t make very funny comic strips.
Definitely liking this one.
When I hear the argument that “only the police and military should have guns!”, I love to ask, “But if only they had guns, why would they need them?”
The cognitive dissonance is deafening as they sputter out that police would need guns, because criminals would still have them.
I always thought it was ironic that those who were Individualist would allow the elite to exist, but never rule, while those who claim to be egalitarian and hate the elites, want big government, who are always ruled by the elites(I understand some egalitarians hate large government, but this is the minority).
I’m pro-elitism in the sense that I think everybody to strive the best they can and better themselves. Be strong in your convictions and steadfast in your self-esteem and self-assurance, but don’t be a condescending douchebag.
Instead of not having guns, it would be better if the police and military just went away.
“When I hear the argument that ‘only the police and military should have guns!’, I love to ask, ‘But if only they had guns, why would they need them?’
The cognitive dissonance is deafening as they sputter out that police would need guns, because criminals would still have them.”
That is *brilliant*!
Actually the anti-gun guy in the cartoon could be pro-national socialst because the national socialists in Germany in the 1930’s believed that only the military and police should have guns.
Give the statist a break… his intelligence is obviously hampered by the constricted blood flow through that tiny neck!
Hahahaah! Awesome work.
This is quite good. I voted for you today.
NAILED AGAIN! they should call Angry Josh “The Carpenter”.
great article, great comments all around.
interesting Hybrid system Ron! kinda like “citizen nullification”. all the justice you love from jury nullification with half the bureaucracy. the Brits actually had a similar system when a police force was first proposed to them: they accepted it *only* on condition that the police be forbidden to carry while the public carry freely. the cops could have arsenals for “public emergencies” but had to keep them locked up, which cut down on the “indisciminate” violence that happens with the free-ranging armed thugs.
“When I hear the argument that “only the police and military should have guns!”, I love to ask, “But if only they had guns, why would they need them?”
The cognitive dissonance is deafening as they sputter out that police would need guns, because criminals would still have them.”
Do you only talk to stupid people? The police shouldn’t have them, either. The armed forces need them to deal with other states who aren’t necessarily as happy and friendly as you, like those National Socialist types. If you care to solve that problem without violence, good luck to you – and I mean that. But I don’t see it happening.
Nice try, though.
Speaking of which:
“Actually the anti-gun guy in the cartoon could be pro-national socialst because the national socialists in Germany in the 1930’s believed that only the military and police should have guns.”
I’m English. Thanks for implicitly calling me a Nazi.
Thanks for trying to render us helpless.
That’s a pathetic response.
“Do you only talk to stupid people? The police shouldn’t have them, either. The armed forces need them to deal with other states who aren’t necessarily as happy and friendly as you, like those National Socialist types. If you care to solve that problem without violence, good luck to you – and I mean that. But I don’t see it happening.”
Andy, are you suggesting that there are any governments that use their police and armed forced responsibly?
“Andy, are you suggesting that there are any governments that use their police and armed forced responsibly?”
That is a very problematic question to answer. I would like to say “Yes, by and large, I think mine does”. But then my country was involved in the Iraq war and despite knowing Iraqi civilians who supported the war, I would still reject it being a responsible use of force. And furthermore, the recent G20 riots have given plenty of examples of irresponsible use of force by the police. I could come up with countless other examples.
My problem is that I have never been provided with a compelling alternative. That is why I have come here, on the recommendation of a friend, in search of one. I merely wished to address the oversimplifications I saw above. It’s all well and good to knock down straw dolls; I would like to see how the people here deal with actual arguments.
To conclude, I should clarify that I never deal in absolutes. I would never argue that my government uses force responsibly in all cases. I do, however, trust that it does more often than not. The “not” part of that equation still troubles me, however, and it is because of this that I seek alternative solutions. I am therefore not here to troll, or be an opponent. I am here to see if I can learn something.
@Andy Never dealing in absolutes is ALWAYS a good policy. Oh, wait…
@Richard – lol
Hi, I loved it so I translated it into French to create a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThm0k47hhs
Cheers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThm0k47hhs
I’m sharing that on Facebook!
In Norway our police doesn’t have guns, i’ve never seen a military personell in my life and i still have yet to see a gun outside the internet and TV O.o
That said we are also scraping the bottom of crime rates and homicides. gun crimes are probably some of the lowest in the world…. So gun bans might not be such a bad idea, but i can’t imagine that the United States would put down all their guns withing a short time period. getting rid of all guns would surely take centuries O_o
That’s far from a controlled experiment, Odin. There are so many other factors that make Norway different from the U.S. besides gun laws that can impact crime rates. I think the U.S. is one of the most imperialist countries and is one of the worst in terms of a police state, i.e. really cracking down on stupid victimless crimes which is fuel for the fire of real crimes. But that’s just one factor and there are countless others. The closest thing there is to a controlled experiment is comparing areas with intrusive gun laws to very similar areas (otherwise) but with far less restrictions. Just within the U.S., there are many states of both persuasions and there is no evidence statistically that gun laws are reducing crime anywhere and in fact some of the worst crime areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws, e.g. Washington D.C.
Dale, that is still not a controlled experiment in any way. You need to take two locations with similar crime levels to start with, then apply the gun laws to only one (that would be a weak experiment, do to the low sample size, but it would at least be a controlled one). The problem with your example is that the starting crime levels are unknown, so those states that have the restrictive gun laws might actually have experienced a decrease through passing them, while still being left with a higher amount of crimes even after the decrease.
Precisely. There is no world wide consistency with regards to gun laws and crime rate. Switzerland is a prime example. Thy have almost no weapons restrictions at all, they even let their soldiers take their issued assault rifle home with them after they leave the army! They have a higher rate of gun ownership per capita than almost any other country, more than even the United States! Yet their crime rate is almost non-existent.
Food for thought…