# Debate:  Should the USA Disarm its Police Force?



## Steve (Apr 4, 2014)

Gun control is a topic that can be mined for many great debates. By proposing a specific topic (disarming the police) rather than a broad topic (gun control), I'm hoping to make things a little easier to get a handle on.

Before we start, I would like to lay down some ground rules:  

1:  Debate is a skill and a game.  The goal is to win, and winning is determined (in this case) by the judges as the thread winds down.  I expect that the "judges" will be anyone who cares to share an opinion and a winner will be declared by consensus.  This is NOT intended to be disrespectful of anyone's deeply held beliefs, nor is it intended to mock or make fun of anyone.  It's an exercise.

2:  Obviously, we won't be adhering to any real format, other than the one we're used to here in the Study.  However, bear in mind that judging will be based upon the following criteria, in order of importance:


Did you prove your point?
Did you do so in a way that was engaging and respectful?
Did you state your points in a manner that was accessible to a lay person?
Did you stay on the topic of the debate?

3:  The entire point of this game is to argue the position that most directly opposes your own. 

4:  That's it.  Have fun.  Let's see how this goes.  
__________________________________________

Topic:  Should the USA disarm its police force?

In many countries, such as Norway and the UK (and others), the police force is largely unarmed.  Other countries, such as the USA, have an armed police force.  

We have seen on these forums discussions regarding the "militarization" of the police, and many good points have been shared on either side of the debate.  

On one side, arguments are made, such as concern regarding the victimization of certain ethnic minorities and allegations of unnecessary brutality, including fatal shootings which were not only unnecessary, but avoidable. 

Others argue that, in a country where criminals are often armed, and where the threat of terrorism is a global concern, having an armed police force is not only a good idea, but necessary in order to keep the peace.  Disarming the police would be considered naive and idealistic.

These are but a few examples from both sides of the debate.  So, should the USA disarm its police force?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 4, 2014)

Oops I didn't understand the game.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Actually Norwegian police are armed they keep them in the partol vehicle not on their belts but they are armed.
> 
> 
> Also many of these countries allow armed military response on their soil.  We do not.  For example the Norwegian special forces responded to that shooting that killed 80 at the youth camp.  Part of the problem was it took then a half hour to get there. Our military can't do that.


Ballen, in the spirit of the exercise, wouldn't you argue in favor of disarming the police?  If so, you're kind of doing the other side's work.


----------



## K-man (Apr 4, 2014)

Well I could kick this one off as it is a really great idea. I mean it is the rational solution to a huge problem and I must thank you, *Steve*, for alerting me to the possibilities.

It is a fact that man is inherently good, so the use of firearms to control a society where we all are working for the good of our communities is really not necessary. The threat to criminals is really not that they are endangered by the general population but that armed police could harm them or even kill them in a confrontational situation. Now we have debated the concepts of a free society in the past and I can see the point that *Maka* made in another place. Criminals are only criminals because we make laws that make them criminals. I mean, in a free society anyone can take what they want when they want and do whatever they want whenever they want. Once we accept that as normal behaviour we don't actually need police at all so they could be usefully redeployed to help old ladies cross the street, provide helpful information to tourists and other worthwhile community services. In a situation where the police are not armed and there are no laws to enforce, criminals are no longer criminals so they also now have no need to carry guns thus making the streets safer. It is only a small step from here to eliminating all firearms except for the need to put down feral pests and we could probably do that by lethal injection more humanely anyway.

This brave new society would also be far less stressful than what we have now as well. We no longer have to lock our doors. In this free society people are free to _borrow_ your property at any time so you will no longer have to worry about things being stolen. I mean how cool is it that someone borrows your old Ford pickup and you get to borrow your neighbour's Ferrari. He is quite happy to take his boss' Lamborghini. The boss is more than happy to have the pickup as that takes him back to his childhood. Win/win all around.

I can't imagine why we gave the police guns in the first place.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 4, 2014)

Not only should police be armed, they need to have better arms and protection than they have now.  In the age of terrorism and rampant organized drug crime, serving your country as a police officer is not only becoming more dangerous, but it's becoming even more important.  After 9/11, it was apparent to everyone how weak America had gotten internally and the terrorists have stepped up their activities.  Only with the best arms available, the best defenses, the very best in surveillance, and even military grade hardware can America convince the terrorists that we are not weak.  Also, with so many threats to our safety and so few good men that are willing to step up and deal with the rabble, the country can't afford to lose any of these well trained heroes.  I can't believe anyone would even suggest disarming the police in such an environment.

There is a thin blue line that hold the rough elements away of society away from the voters and this line is strengthened by the best arms available.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2014)

Cops in the USA never get killed by persons with weapons. Therefore they need no weapons themselves.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 4, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Cops in the USA never get killed by persons with weapons. Therefore they need no weapons themselves.



I don't know where you are getting your information from, but unfortunately, I know for a fact that LEOs get killed all of the time in the USA.  The criminals can get all kinds of weapons on the black market which makes enforcing the laws incredibly dangerous.  In fact, gang members now are joining the US military in order to get training in weapons and tactics in order to bring it back to the street!  If this country isn't careful, we're going to have inner cities turning into little hell holes of drug violence as these gangs prey on each other and on the innocent.  Only the police stand in the way of this menace.  We need to strengthen the war on drugs, the war on crime and we need to make sure our heroes overseas in uniform don't come home to have to fight the new enemy in the streets of the USA.  In fact, I say that we should probably create a direct pipeline for all of the brave volunteers who defend our freedom to come home and continue doing the good work here.  The bottom line is that the Police need the best weapons, the best training, and they need the liberals to get off their backs about people's rights and all of that crybaby stuff.  The only thing a criminal mind understands is force.  

And I support MAXIMUM force.


----------



## hussaf (Apr 4, 2014)

A kid I went to HS with just got shot and killed, he was a cop.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2014)

Cops are not "normal people" with normal fears, hopes for their children or private lives. As robots of the state they deserve what they get if they get killed responding to an armed robbery being conducted by a misunderstood victim of the system who would never have considered killing someone if it were not for the "war on drugs". It may take a few broken eggs before the omelette is made, but if Police were forced to use de-escalation and kind words then eventually the criminals will stop carrying weapons because they wont have to worry about getting shot by the police.

While we are at it lets outlaw body armor and armored vehicles. Only guys like armored truck service workers and things like cash require protection from bullets. Some other sucker can always be made a cop...dime a dozen.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 4, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Cops are not "normal people" with normal fears, hopes for their children or private lives. As robots of the state they deserve what they get if they get killed responding to an armed robbery being conducted by a misunderstood victim of the system who would never have considered killing someone if it were not for the "war on drugs". It may take a few broken eggs before the omelette is made, but if Police were forced to use de-escalation and kind words then eventually the criminals will stop carrying weapons because they wont have to worry about getting shot by the police.
> 
> While we are at it lets outlaw body armor and armored vehicles. Only guys like armored truck service workers and things like cash require protection from bullets. Some other sucker can always be made a cop...dime a dozen.



This is what I'm talking about.  Only the product of a real socialist pinko education system could ever spout something so insane.  No wonder the terrorists think we're weak.  As if criminal understands words.  Please.  Like I said, the only thing they understand is force and if crime is bad in certain areas, the only thing that is going to help is more force.  I wish I didn't have to say this, but we have cities now that have murder rates higher than third world countries.  I think the nation is going to have to vastly expand it's police force, go into those places, and settle things down.  We need to check every green card, kick the illegals out, and for God's sake deport the Muslims.  How we ever let the enemy into this country is beyond me.  Then, we might even have to start taking the guns.  All of those people are fighting each other and selling drugs and preying on the innocents...and now all of that trouble is spilling out of the cities in good neighborhoods!  Our country was founded on the idea that people should have personal freedom, but the liberals have gone and ruined it and now the only thing we can do is clean up the mess.  We've got to get the guns out of the hands of the bad people and put them into the hands of young patriotic men who are willing to fight for what this country used to stand for.  

Maybe down the road this country can get back that place where we were pure and everyone was free.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2014)

Exactly and if it takes a few dead jackboots to get there so much the better. I mean every single one of them is on a power trip and could care less about really putting criminals in jail. Hell not a one of them has even shed a tear after telling a parent their child is dead. Or relived things they have seen doing their so called "service" in the middle of the night....robots. It may take a year or two of something you see in movies like "the purge" before things balance out, but eventually a society without LE will become a peaceful place to live.....like Somalia for example.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man (Apr 5, 2014)

I can't believe you guys. Criminals are people too and they and their families have rights. In fact because many of them are severely disadvantaged they actually deserve special consideration. If the police gave up their arms and by removing laws they no longer have to fight crime they could probably even help with the distribution of drugs to those in need. To suggest that police should actually have even more armament is obscene. I can remember back in the seventies when the Flower People showed us how we could all live in peace and harmony. Maybe we could take a leaf from their book. I mean a little bit of pot helps lubricate the social conscience.
:asian:


----------



## billc (Apr 5, 2014)

If police in the U.S. We're disarmed it would reduce violence.  part of the problem is escalation.  If police have pistols the criminals think they need pistols.  if the police have AR-15s then the criminals will arm themselves accordingly.  if the criminals are forced to arm because the police are heavily armed, then it increases the chance that guns will be used during the commission of normal street crime since guns will be part of the normal gear a criminal,carries.  

what at we need are unarmed police officers on he beat with extra training in conflict resolution, and training in community service instead of law enforcement.  that, more than anything else will reduce violence in lower income communities since police will no longer be seen as an "occupying" force.

For the rare occasion where force is needed, you can have specially trained response teams, as they do in other countries, who will have some firearms available, but under tighter control and scrutiny.  they would have their firearms released to them as incidents are called in, subject to signing off by the correct supervisors. this will also de-escalate violence because the extra time it takes to deploy these specially trained units,may allow the situation to achieve,a peaceful outcome before these teams arrive, if not, then as they arrive on the scene, "active scene" supervisors can sign off on the actual use of force and monitor the team to insure the level of force meets department training standards.

In this way, the need for heavily armed and militarized police will come to a peaceful end.

( I know how the left thinks way too well for my own good )


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2014)

billc said:


> If police in the U.S. We're disarmed it would reduce violence.  part of the problem is escalation.  If police have pistols the criminals think they need pistols.  if the police have AR-15s then the criminals will arm themselves accordingly.  if the criminals are forced to arm because the police are heavily armed, then it increases the chance that guns will be used during the commission of normal street crime since guns will be part of the normal gear a criminal,carries.
> 
> what at we need are unarmed police officers on he beat with extra training in conflict resolution, and training in community service instead of law enforcement.  that, more than anything else will reduce violence in lower income communities since police will no longer be seen as an "occupying" force.
> 
> ...



Good argument, Bill.  I was just caricaturing before, now, I think I'll play for real.  The problem with this premise though is that I don't really have a strong argument one way or the other on disarming the police.  I think it depends so much on the culture that one approach will not fit the needs of that culture.  On the whole, I think a lot of places in the US could have a lot less cops with a lot fewer guns, so I'll argue the opposite.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2014)

"A lot fewer guns"....what exactly does that mean? Every other cop has a pistol?

See a lot of American cops on routine patrol carrying long guns? Or is even having a rifle in the car in the event of a robbery "too much". About 9 yrs ago one of our officers had to shoot an armed robbery suspect with a shotgun after he exited a store and pointed a gun at the officer. If all that cop had was his pistol things may have turned out far differently.

What exactly is your knowledge and experience regarding what weapons a PD like mine may have in its possession and how would you base your decision that we have "too many"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2014)

Tgace said:


> "A lot fewer guns"....what exactly does that mean?



It's a figure of speech.  

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/me...cle_fa60aeb2-2115-11e3-8b09-001a4bcf887a.html

I think technology like this is a worthwhile expenditure for small towns in rural America.  The Federal Government over spent on Defense and produced too many of the vehicles it would use overseas and some of them could actually be put to good civilian use.  So, not only is this a way for the tax payer to redeem some of the waste at the federal level, it's also a great way to protect the lives of police should a serious situation ever arise.  It's better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.  Besides, this local PD is even engaging the public in the purchase.  They are having fund raisers, bake sales, and raffles where families can express their support for purchases like this.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 7, 2014)

billc said:


> If police in the U.S. We're disarmed it would reduce violence.  part of the problem is escalation.  If police have pistols the criminals think they need pistols.  if the police have AR-15s then the criminals will arm themselves accordingly.  if the criminals are forced to arm because the police are heavily armed, then it increases the chance that guns will be used during the commission of normal street crime since guns will be part of the normal gear a criminal,carries.
> 
> what at we need are unarmed police officers on he beat with extra training in conflict resolution, and training in community service instead of law enforcement.  that, more than anything else will reduce violence in lower income communities since police will no longer be seen as an "occupying" force.
> 
> ...



billc, 

I was right with you until the bold/underlined part.  Why in the world would you arm police and send them in, they with their well earned bad reputation.  Why not send in specially trained criminals.  With their training, and their empathy, and hard earned reputation as criminals themselves, they would have a much better chance at reasoning with other criminals than any cop ever would.  Really billc, what were you thinking?  



Makalakumu said:


> Good argument, Bill.  I was just caricaturing before, now, I think I'll play for real.  The problem with this premise though is that I don't really have a strong argument one way or the other on disarming the police.  I think *it depends so much on the culture that one approach will not fit the needs of that culture*.  On the whole, I think a lot of places in the US could have a lot less cops with a lot fewer guns, so I'll argue the opposite.



You hit the nail on the head (and it hurt too).  I cannot imagine police rarely or never being armed in the US.  But it works for some cultures.  It just wouldn't work in the USA.  Whether we like it or not, criminals will often carry guns, and if they do, you can expect they are willing to use them.  You can expect they will use them against resisting victims, and against responding police.  There are police/news reports to back that up.  

Could we try to change that to a no-gun response by police?  We sure could, and in a several decades it might take.  But the citizenry would never stand for the police not stopping crime, which they would need weapons to do in our culture.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 8, 2014)

http://ktla.com/2014/04/07/lapd-officer-wounded-in-shooting-at-police-station/#axzz2yJKsij2e


----------

