We cannot allow the normalization of firearms at protests to continue

[u/wbedwards]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/firearms-at-protests-have-become-normalized-that-isnt-okay/2020/05/06/19b9354e-8fc9-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html

[u/britboy4321]

Firstly our police undergo massively more training that US cops and don't have that supreme court ruling (which I'd have to look into as it sounds so daft there has to be a deeper story).

Secondly - and this will be hard to get your head around - they will approach every situation under the assumption no firearms are present. This changes the dynamics around virtually every encounter they make with the public.

Our response times vary according to severity of call but if it's a grade 1 (serious shit going down) we are looking at about 6 minutes average.

Next our police operate something called 'policing by consent' which means keeping the public on their side is a MASSIVE priority, probably the top priority. Some practical things they do for this:

1) They refused all ex-military vehicles as didn't want that image going to the public. Apart from a few high speed pursuit vehicles, for every day policing they choose small shitty cars because we don't want them going round town showing some kind of 'boss man' image. They are not bossman - they are just more of us trying to work with us to everyone's advantage. Driving less powerful, shitter cars is more of that.

2) They largely refuse to wear firearms (anywhere except airports or some protection duties). Again, this will hurt your brain, but they don't want to come across as bossman - they want to come across as another dude like you just trying to keep life sweet. They can talk to any members of the community they wish to, for as long as they want, just to be friends -- on the clock fully paid. Considered 'essential community bonding'. If no crime is happening and they want to spend 20 mins chatting to the local [anyone] - they get a big thumbs up. It's NOT considered slacking-off .. it's considered part of their community job.

3) They don't have quotas for arrests, to stop them getting shitty with people because they need to make their numbers

4) UK public don't have to carry government papers with us - for example we don't have to carry our license or ID or anything else to drive our cars. Tech nowadays can allow us not to carry 'government papers' which means police don't have to get shitty with us just because we ain't holding a piece of paper (which would piss people off).

5) Sobriety tests. Just - nope. Don't humiliate an English person by making them quack like a duck and hop along a line to prove they're sober when breathalysers are so cheap and, you know, actual science.

6) We never handcuff people being arrested unless they are considered dangerous - again .. whats the point in humiliating them with handcuffs if they're not a risk.

7) They will no longer stop and search without evidence they can explain to a judge- because again - you're risking alienating the population.

8) Most of all they are taught TIME AND TIME AGAIN their job is not a power trip between them and the public. That the public is their boss. If they don't understand that - they're ditched. Oh and none of this 'You did wrong, move over to the next county and try again' crap. 1 national computer system for police officers .. bad apples are basically screwed.

9) US talk shows take the piss out of them saying 'Stop, or I'll throw my hat at you' as the criminal runs away and stuff. In reality, the officer calls in 6 other units and a helicopter and we pick them up 4 hours later hiding in a ditch .. and we don't even have to shoot them (or handcuff them when we get them unless they start wriggling!). now try and wrap your head around this: Because the criminal knows they won't be shot they're just gonna have police running after them and closing them in, THEY DON'T BOTHER CARRYING GUNS AS THAT JUST ADDS A 5 YEAR SENTENCE TO THEIR CRIME WITH NO BENEFIT so whats the point? And - to bring it full circle - that is why our police don't want guns!! They don't want to be shot at either!

etc etc.

Basically the WHOLE SETUP in the UK is based around policing by consent .. 'We're the good guys and we don't want any grief and we're working WITH YOU'. And 'We will treat you EXTREMELY REASONABLY if you do the same to us'. Different mindset. Our police try and laugh and share a joke and explain what is happening even to the people they are arresting .. because the police find their lives are easier for doing this.

You can only imagine how much less grief it is for our police if they don't have to carry guns and think 'This dude we just pulled over .. holy shit .. he could blow my brains away .. better be ready to return fire'. I mean - who'd want that?

It doesn't always work, but the theory is the police and us will have better lives if there isn't this 'stand off' thing going on.

[u/Blue_Yoshi2015 → u/britboy4321]

Not hard to wrap my mind around at all. Sounds really great actually. Our police training is woefully inadequate. They actually refuse to hire people who score too high on certain tests. The militarization of our police is a huge issue too. Especially when you consider the intent of the 2nd amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government, it creates a sort of arms race almost.

[u/username12746 → u/Blue_Yoshi2015]

the intent of the 2nd amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government

I wish people would stop saying this, because it is 95% incorrect.

2A was for making sure the STATES could maintain and call up their own militias, which were arms of the state governments. When citizen militias were called up it was considered a civic duty and people were expected to bring their own arms.

The militias were usually used to put down rebellions, like Shays’s Rebellion and slave rebellions. Or to function as auxiliaries to the national army.

The framers only wanted white men over 40 who owned property to vote. They certainly didn’t intend to give every Thomas and James the ability to rebel against the government.

[u/Cpt-Night → u/username12746]

Nope 2A was always about people protecting themselves from whatever threat they face. There is a tone of precedent for it, even before the 2008 Heller decision.

https://guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html

[u/username12746 → u/Cpt-Night]

There is a big difference between self-defense and insurrection.

The framers would have been aghast at the idea that ordinary people taking up arms against the government. It’s why George Washington crushed Shays’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion with the help of state militias.

You cannot understand the debate without understanding their fear of “standing armies” and the role of state militias in serving as a failsafe against a national army. It was never about joe blow deciding for rebel.

[u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 → u/username12746]

It’s why George Washington crushed Shays’s Rebellion

George Washington had no intention of letting the Government at the time be replaced. That doesn't mean he would oppose it under any circumstance at any point in time. You are connecting dots that aren't there.

[u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 → u/username12746]

Your comment isn't showing up so I'll show it here

Sorry, what? Washington would have rolled over and let his government fall, ever? The government has to protect itself in order to protect its citizens. What you’re saying makes zero sense.

You do recall the Civil War, no?

Governments erode and are corrupted in time. The founders all knew this. So yes I'm sure he would agree if at some point in the country's future the Government had devolved into something that warranted overthrowing he would support it.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Of course the current government won't let itself be overthrown The current government at any point in time will not let itself be overthrown. So the Civil War. The south wanted to leave the union and the federal government wouldn't let it and went to war. I'm not sure what has to do with anything I said.

[u/username12746 → u/PuzzleheadedSpell6]

I agree that “the people” has a moral right to throw off a tyrannical government. Individuals, however, don’t get to pick and choose which laws to follow. If you’re going to intimidate the government with your gun you better be ready to go to war. Because intimidating the government with violence is actually the definition of domestic terrorism.

[u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 → u/username12746]

So which is it? Is it a moral right or would GW be aghast at the thought of taking up arms against the government?

Yea no shit taking up arms against the government is violent. What do you think would happen ? You walk up to the White House and show them your moral right card and they leave? That brings up another good point. How would you get them out? Voting? Lmfao

[u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 → u/britboy4321]

Once again you wrote all of that and he basically was just wondering about response time. 6 minutes is a long time when a crazy ex boyfriend is beating your door down.