Why do Police have guns? - Page 7

[USMCbaby]

When I said nothing, I meant no connection to September 11th, no WMD's, and certainly there are other countries with worse dictators than Saddam. We were all told that Saddam was a threat. So we captured him. What are they fighting and dying for TODAY?!

My husband enlisted to defend his country, not be sent to Iraq indefinitely as a crutch for the Iraqi's in the middle of a civil war. Just because they do *some* things to help the country, does not mean they didn't help destroy it. When my husband was in the battle of Fallujah in 2004, the Marines told women and children to leave the city, everyone left in the city was an insurgent. They DESTROYED the city in a battle that left 50 coalition forces killed and HUNDREDS wounded. My husband lost Marines in that battle and looking back today, the only thing I can say is that they died trying to protect each other.

You know, not everyone lives in a nice air conditioned/heated base where they get 3 hot meals a day plus showers, internet and phones. My husband had to live with the locals in schoolhouses. They had electricity (sometimes), shelf stable food, no form of communication, no showers, no beds, etc. They had to go house to house and patrol the streets, not live in a safe compound listening to Toby Keith play in concert.

Many of the Marines we know who were there had to get out of the Marine Corps from injuries or were so tired of deployments they wanted to get out. Three deployments to Iraq on a four year contract are too much physically and emotionally. The reason why we have not lost as many injured compared to previous wars is due to medical technology and the protective armor that they wear. Ceramic plates stop bullets, but can not help you when an IED blows shrapnel into your brain. Maybe you should take a look at all the veterans with traumatic brain injuries (TBI's) and PTSD and tell me how they are supposed to live the rest of their lives like this. There have been 3,665 deaths, about half from IED's and 26,558 injuries. There were 1,431 injured in November 2004 alone. http://icasualties.org/oif/

I have spent time volunteering with the wounded in the hospital. Bringing them clothes, cookies, magazines, a meal on Thanksgiving. These are people who do not have a voice. They are not allowed to speak against the government or the president. It has gone on too long. My husband lived through his experience. Someone asked him if he was lucky to be here. I think he is. Just because people have lost a loved one in this war doesn't mean I don't have a right to my opinion. My husband lived to tell about his experience and I think today you would find that the MAJORITY of service members do not want to serve in Iraq. Sure, it is all right for them to go, because they signed that dotted line. But when retention is down and recruiting is down, who is willing to go? Maybe when they start the draft, people will get mad enough to stop being so PC.

If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention!

To the OP: I am sorry for the incredible thread jack and I will stop posting here.

*ETA - I am proud of my husband for serving with his Marines. He trained them well. They are not just warriors. They are brave, kind, smart, funny. I think of them like family. But I can not say that I am proud of my country for sending them to war with no game plan, no exit strategy.

[mommy2caroline]

To answer your question of what they are fighting and dying for... I think it is to restore stability - to help the "new" Iraq get on its feet. Just because Saddam is gone doesn't mean all of his followers are. Eliminating just the dictator would never be the end of the problem in any country.

I don't understand why you even bring up the fact that not all soldiers live in a nice base with all the amenities we're accustomed to here... I know that. I don't get why you mention it.

"Maybe you should take a look at all the veterans with traumatic brain injuries (TBI's) and PTSD and tell me how they are supposed to live the rest of their lives like this." And what does this have to do with it? Yes, it's terrible that people get injured in war, but it is a reality. And if they didn't *choose* to go themselves, then other lives would be lost - maybe even here on our home territory, where we'd be attacked ands more vulnerable.

And the draft isn't going to be reinstated. I also don't think you can prove that most of the soldiers are against the war in Iraq.

There are people out there who HATE us - hate us with a deep passion that they have been indoctrinated with from birth - only for the reason that we're Americans. They hate the newborn American citizens simply because they live here and thus represent the American way of life. They don't care who they kill or how, so long as they kill Americans. It is terrifying! That's what outrages me.

[changa]

Soldiers are not the good guys, they are not the bad guys. But it is their job to kill to protect their government's interests. Sometimes that means killing to make the world a better place, sometimes it just means killing. Naturally, every soldier hopes and desperately wants to believe that his actions were individually bad and painful, but societally made things better -- better enough to remove all guilt.

If the ends don't justify the means, then every soldier everywhere is evil. If the ends sometimes justify the means, then some soldiers are evil, and some are good. Which is the world I live in. But those ends had better be good enough to compensate for those means, and that's saying a lot.

Police maintain order, sometimes they create order. Maintenance is a lot easier, a lot more clear-cut. If one person goes nuts, they need to be taken out to protect us all. Police are the good guys. In Los Angeles, where order has never been fully established, the actions of the police are unpredictable. Sometimes they protect the populace, sometimes they kill random people for no clear reason. The police are not the good guys when they don't have the resources to make things better, they are just another gang with guns.

Originally Posted by karma_momma

The media paints a nasty picture of President Bush, but his job is to keep us safe right? Ask yourself, when is the last time we had a terrorist attack?

I cannot let this pass. Bush was warned by multiple sources about Osama, and chose to ignore all of them. There is no way to sugar-coat that without lying about it. The only successful attack on the USA in my lifetime happened on Bush's watch. We have not exacted any revenge on Osama, and we've stopped trying. We haven't stabilized Afganistan, or Iraq. We have even less of a plan to stabilize Iraq than we did the time we put Saddam in power there! We're making enemies in Iran, without a plan for peaceful settlement and are sending money and weapons over to kill Muslims in Israel constantly.

Our troops, like our police, can only make things better when there's a real and present danger. Subtle threats cannot always be dealt with using guns, and mismanagement of the military is precisely that type of threat. We aren't making the world safer for anyone, we're just killing people no clear reason.

[USMCbaby]

I also don't think you can prove that most of the soldiers are against the war in Iraq.

Okey dokey.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
Poll results published 12/29/06

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Mil itary Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland, was not sur prised by the changing attitude within the military.

“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.

He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the in telligence that led to the war was wrong.”

If you think the numbers will get better as time goes on, you are wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote: And when you compare the numbers, we've lost far fewer in Iraq than in other wars (not that it's a good thing to lose lives at all, but for comparison's sake)...

I wrote: The reason why we have not lost as many injured compared to previous wars is due to medical technology and the protective armor that they wear. Ceramic plates stop bullets, but can not help you when an IED blows shrapnel into your brain. Maybe you should take a look at all the veterans with traumatic brain injuries (TBI's) and PTSD and tell me how they are supposed to live the rest of their lives like this. There have been 3,665 deaths, about half from IED's and 26,558 injuries. There were 1,431 injured in November 2004 alone.

I was responding to your statement! I have given you the numbers of people who have survived, but with what quality of life because of the injuries they sustained. So why did you say:

"And what does this have to do with it? Yes, it's terrible that people get injured in war, but it is a reality. And if they didn't *choose* to go themselves, then other lives would be lost - maybe even here on our home territory, where we'd be attacked ands more vulnerable."

If you think our military can respond to threats on US soil you are WRONG. We couldn't even take care of people when Hurricare Katrina and Rita hit. We have the National Guard in Iraq! The people who are best equipped to handle an attack are DEPLOYED. We are stretched so thin, we are MORE vulnerable to a terrorist attack. OMG. I am going to

The Marine Corps is not an occupying force. They are not trained for that and they do not have the numbers for it. They Army has longer deployment cycles because they have more people. The Army deployments are extended to 15 months. I *personally* think that under these EXTREME conditions, we will not be able to sustain the mission...whatever that is. People get burned out, get out or retire. Again, just my personal thought, but we will have a permnanent military presence in Iraq similar to Korea.
-------------------------------------------------
Feel free to ignore my comments. I am done. You have your opinion, I have mine. The end.

[melle.mckelvy]

You guys need to stop obscuring your world-view and your child's with your own personal ideologies! Pick up a history book, notice how there have always been soldiers and police and weapons as long as there have been people? We live in a dangerous universe. We are at the mercy of forces much greater than us, some of which are other people, and which sometimes do great ills to us. We're on a speeding spinning rock, circling a ball of fire traveling through infinite space. We are puny specs in a vast scheme where strife and suffering are built into the equation and if they weren't, man would put it there anyway to serve his greedy and selfish nature. There is no good or evil, only circumstance and survival. It's best not to preach pacifism to our kids, but put to them the facts of life and teach them to think of others. That can be more powerful than gravity.

[anarchamama]

Originally Posted by melle.mckelvy

You guys need to stop obscuring your world-view and your child's with your own personal ideologies! Pick up a history book, notice how there have always been soldiers and police and weapons as long as there have been people? We live in a dangerous universe. We are at the mercy of forces much greater than us, some of which are other people, and which sometimes do great ills to us. We're on a speeding spinning rock, circling a ball of fire traveling through infinite space. We are puny specs in a vast scheme where strife and suffering are built into the equation and if they weren't, man would put it there anyway to serve his greedy and selfish nature. There is no good or evil, only circumstance and survival. It's best not to preach pacifism to our kids, but put to them the facts of life and teach them to think of others. That can be more powerful than gravity.

If you think there is any parent anywhere, ever who has not passed on their personal ideologies your seriously delusional. Now those ideologies/cultures may be obscured or less obvious if they are the dominant ones, but I would consider myslef a seriosuly bad parent (if not a sociopath) if I neglected to try to teach my kids the difference between right and wrong, and helpt hem understand the world the way I see it (though I don't try to shelter them from others views no matter how different). Which history book would you suggest to prove that thier have always been soldiers and police? I am assuming it is once which begins with the industrial revolutiona nd only covers the hitories of the industrial west? Because the idea that this is a historically and geographic norm is laughable.

As for the war in Iraq, it is an illegal, unjust and immoral war. One which is absoloutly not being fought to protect the US or do any good for Iraq. That being said I think the US govt has created an economic situation which is, essentially, a draft on the poor, and a frankly I think at this point bringing back the draft on everyone would be the fastest way to mobalize people to end the war. People don't hate americans for some totally random inexplicable ideology (or at least the vast majority don't). most people also don't hate the american people, however most of the world does hate the american government. That would be because of it's long and continuing history of colonialism, violence, meddling int he affairs of other soveriegn governments, pillaging of others resources, and shallow self righteous patriotism.

[the_lissa]

Great post anarchamama.

[Tata]

"Pick up a history book, notice how there have always been soldiers and police and weapons as long as there have been people? We live in a dangerous universe...."

First, those history books are biased to a patriarchy. Second, they obviously only go back a short span of human history. No, there have not always been police and armed soldiers. Those are more modern inventions. People used to decide in a group as to what to do with trouble makers as there were very few who went against their communities. Wars/fighting each other for things has been a part of human history, but not always. There was a time when humans simply didn't see other humans outside of their community. Again, a more recent thing in human history. And, I am talking of ancient human history, such as the two million years our species has walked the earth. Population growth, cities, agriculture to support cities, wealth, greed and power are the root reasons for armed police and soldiers, not just because. Only ten thousand years or so.
The view that we live in a dangerouse universe is common in the "civilized" cultures. Civilization disconnects people from the universe. Of course it seems dangerouse. The universe simply is. People can be dangerouse. Especially when they are after resources, are greedy, or crave power over others. Very dangerouse indeed.

Police are first and formost public servants. They derive their authority from the populace itself, as does the government (who are also public servants). At any time it wishes, that populace can take that authority away. But, the populace has to want to do that. So long as the majority of the populace is kept "safe" (whatever that means) fed and distracted, the power structure will continue to controle the society via armed police and soldiers. It's an old (new) invention.

[WalkingByFaith]

Sorry..I only read the OP's post..so this is in direct response to his question.

I would tell my son that the police have guns because they work much better than lollipops and rainbows in situations where a very dangerous person is putting other innocent people in harm.:

[anarchamama]

Alternatly they could carry rocks:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1k...elated&search=

oh I just couldn't resist.

Cheers

[Tata]

And, maybe pointed sticks?
Or, they could release the tiger.
But, not fresh fruit.

[captain crunchy]

Originally Posted by UUMom

Discussing all the points you listed broadens the gun discussion that includes your last point.

Post your thoughts on it.

I am for gun control (Switzerland, ftr, has tight gun control laws...people take their owning seriously and respectfully, fi, and their gun violence rate is low). I am not a libertarian. (Except in the case of vax, homeschooling, land ownership...and more. ) How do you square your belief in no gun control and gun violence in America today?

Does a parent who might forbid any sort of gun anything expect a child to be able to deal rationally with guns in society that he might encounter? Will a child feel shame at his/her curisotiy because he knows he hurts the parent witht his interest? Could that shame keep the child from asking the parent for help if he has encountered a gun? (In an alley, a park, a playmate's home?)

How do you let a child know that the National Guard who comes to your house in a storm (hopefully...) is different from the shoot-to-kill government robot discussed earlier. And how does one help a child to understand that calling 911 in an emergency will (usually) bring police help if your grandfather is having a heart attack...

Is fear and shame- based gun 'education' a valid way to cut down on gun interest/usage?


I'm not a gun person, but these are questions that I ask myself a lot. Having had one little guy who did like those playmobil pirates and their stuff, and who has always been a gentle person and is not as an adult interested in guns, I feel that early weaponry interest is just that...an interest... not a signal that the child will grow to be a raving psycho killer.

I think overreacting, shaming and forbidding is very often a catalyst to a more intense interest. Not always...but I've always been very careful not to impose adutl attitudes and fears on the curiosity of small children.

I would enjoy a non- hysterical (Soldiers are killers!! All cops shoot their guns randomly and often!!) discussion this complicated, multi-facitied issue.

I go back to Swizterland...nearly every male there knows how to use a gun, and owns several, yet they aren't shooting each other. Why is that? What respect to they posess that we in the US might learn from?

Excellent post!

Originally Posted by rootzdawta

How to explain it to my child? There's violence in the world, like it or not. Cops have families too and in their line of work, they might come across someone who (whether in reality or not) is a threat. In order for that cop to come home to his daughter or son and wife, he has to protect himself which sometimes involves shooting his gun and sometimes involves somebody dying. I don't see what's wrong with telling children the truth without making it seem like cops are "always good" and whoever they may shoot is "always bad" because in my own personal experience, that's not accurate. In every profession, there's good ones and terrible ones. Let's pray that we only ever have to encounter the good ones.

I snipped your post, but I totally agree with the part I quoted!!

Originally Posted by DragonflyBlue

If I or my family was being attacked or threatened by someone with a gun, I would hope responding LEO's would be armed with more than a smile and a slinky.

And I would hope they would shoot to kill, not shoot to annoy.

Agreed

... and also, I am so sorry for the loss of your daughter *hugs*


My best friend in the world was a police officer, on the street, for 6 years. Imagine that, the cop and the hippy -- we are like our own comedy show jk...

Really though, I have gotten so many insights from her. She is one of the "good ones" -- she let minor speeders off with warnings, would *ignore* strange smells from the cars of college kids, and was helpful and caring. She has opinions on both sides and does agree with many of the things both "sides" of the issue have to say. Also, as a woman in a male dominated profession she had unique circumstances relating to feeling a need to prove herself and things of that nature --

She has seen some serious stuff, some stuff that pains her to this day. Thank God she never had to shoot anyone (her words) and has known people who have. Even the "jerky" LEO she knows (sexist, bossy, hardasses) have suffered terribly emotionally from having to shoot someone (even if they didn't die).

I think it is dangerous to paint anyone as ALL or NOTHING .... not just LEO as a whole, but even the actual person.

It is possible to be an @ss without being a sociopath who gets off on killing people -- and it is possible to be a really good person who, in a volitale situation where adrenalin and fear are in overdrive, can make a short sighted/bad/dangerous decision.

People are complex and when we put everyone into tiny little boxes there is no room to see the whole person.

[seamama11]

Police have guns to defend themselves. America has the most guns per capita in the world. Police in many other countries do not carry guns, but then those countries don't have a populace that is armed to the teeth either.

[Nichevo]

and in Great Britain, where police don't carry guns and where subjects don't have the right to own weapons, the unsolved crime rate is at 80% and somehow, criminals still get weapons!

The fact that Americans have the right to own weapons has nothing to do with the fact that law enforcement officers have them, that argument is a Red Herring.

[the_lissa]

So you are saying the police in the U.K can't solve crimes because they don't have guns?

[Nichevo]

No, I am saying that an armed police force is far more of a deterrent than an unarmed one. Britain has seen a dramatic increase in crime, especially crimes that involve the use of firearms. The question then is, why?

A criminal with a firearm is far more likely to feel emmboldened to act when he or she knows that not only is the civillian populace unlikely to be armed but, the LEOs tasked with their protection are likely to be unarmed as well.

An armed police force provides the first line of deterrence to an armed aggressor. QED, an armed police force in and of itself can be an instrument in the prevention of crime. (Note that I said only an instrument. To truly prevent crime there are other things that are needed.) No matter what though, an armed cop will do far more to prevent crime than any legislation.

[the_lissa]

Okay, but crime prevention and crime solving are quite different.

[BallBaby]

I'm only addressing the first post.

My 5yo dd asked this the other day. Her daddy is a cop.

Here's what I told her:
Daddy has a gun so he can come home to us safely every day and night. Daddy hopes and prays that he never has to use it, and we always hope and pray for the same thing. But, if a criminal every tries to hurt or kill Daddy, he has that gun so he comes home safe and sound. Guns are not toys and people should never just shoot other people. But police officers have to protect others and themselves so they need their gun.

Then we talked a lot about why we don't ever want Daddy to have to use his gun. It was an important conversation.

My dh really really never wants to use his gun. I hope he is never in a situation when he has to. But, I also love my dh and you'd better believe if his life is ever in danger, I don't care what he does, I want him to come home to me and our little family.

Thanks for the question, it's an important one for kids to ask and parents to answer. Also, I don't know if your local police dept has an outreach program, but my dh is always happy to talk to children about his job, why he does it and of course why he has a gun. Kids should never fear cops, cops are their friends.

Kimber
Wife to a great cop
Mama to 2.5 great kids

[Nichevo]

Originally Posted by the_lissa

Okay, but crime prevention and crime solving are quite different.

Prevention creates fewer crimes to solve.


Kimber, give my best to your husband. Most of my friends and family are LEOs from the local to the Federal Level. Instead of wearing blue, I chose to wear green.

[the_lissa]

OKay, but the number of crimes do not change the crime solving *rate*