Should governments have a monopoly on force?

[Darias]

This should go without saying, but please don't reply with an unsupported yes or no answer. Also please read my post before responding.

[Darias]

When asked about gun violence, many people believe, "only police and military should have guns." In other words, they believe that the government should have a monopoly on force or violence. And whether they realize this or not, their statement implies that citizens can't be trusted with weapons, but those in the government can; such reasoning suggests that those who work for government, small or big, are experts who rarely make mistakes, whereas your average gun owner may be trigger-happy, untrained, or insane. This logic forgets that those in government are people too, and by extension are prone to human error just as much as anyone else. From my perspective, this fallacious mindset is just as widespread and wrong as the assumption that religious people are more moral and therefore deserve more trust and respect simply because of their affiliation with a religious institution.

Before you respond to the question in the title, or my perspective on it, consider the case of Christopher Dorner:

For a brief overview of why he was fired see here

Obviously his termination sent him over the edge, whether or not it was justified is not particularly important. But I see the hiring of an unstable person, and potential "culture of racism" within the LAPD as government-created problems.

He allegedly killed and wounded other officers and there's a manhunt out for him now. No charges have been brought against him.

During the search, police officers opened fire, without warning, not on just one, but two people's vehicles. All three could have died, and none matched the description of Dorner. No warnings were given in either case.

The LAPD searched 600 homes in a period of 2 days. If you think they had search warrants for every home, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

They're also searching vehicles without warrant -- with guns drawn:
[center]

[/center]

All of this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.


They've also decided to send a drone after him, given the weather is making the search very difficult.

And given the department's stunning investigative skills and disregard for life and property of innocents, I'm pretty worried about innocent campers being killed.

But the DOJ thinks that the killing of American citizens without charge or due process is justified.

So in sum, we have an insane, heavily armed rogue cop who allegedly killed people -- and is somewhere in hiding. We have an LAPD which may have fired him because of his criticism. The same department is shooting up life and property of innocent people -- when neither the cars nor the victims look anything like what they are after. We have the same department violating the Constitution, randomly searching people's homes and vehicles (at gunpoint) without probable cause or warrant. And now there are drones in the air, which may or may not be armed, looking for anything with a pulse -- so the police can descend upon that individual with weapons blazing whether it's Dorner or someone else. We don't even know if he actually killed anyone. But even if he did -- all of this is just a poorly executed government solution to a government created problem. (And yes, employees of the state, local, or federal government, who get their salaries from our tax dollars, are part of the government)

Dorner also believed in strict gun control...

Because only cops and the military should have guns... right?

[center][/center]

[McCulloch]

Do you think that the situation would have been better if bad cops with guns were opposed by armed citizens? I think that recent history has shown that cell phone cameras are more effective against irresponsible gun use by legal authorities than armed resistance. Don't you?

[Darias]

Do you think that the situation would have been better if bad cops with guns were opposed by armed citizens? I think that recent history has shown that cell phone cameras are more effective against irresponsible gun use by legal authorities than armed resistance. Don't you?

I'm not advocating armed resistance by citizens against the LAPD. That's not the point. In fact, some courts will charge civilians with manslaughter if they defend themselves from intruders, who happen to be authorities that raid the wrong house unannounced.

And if you film a cop, even though it's your constitutional right, that usually makes them suspect you of things. They might claim you can't use it and arrest you if you don't put it away. In any case, I'd be extremely careful to not brandish a cell phone in front of a cop, who could easily "mistake" it for a gun and terminate you.

But as for my post, I'm just trying to poke holes in the idea that guns are somehow safer in the hands of government employees -- because honestly when people call for gun bans for all or certain kinds of guns, they almost always exclude the government; it's just the dangerous rambo rednecks that are the problem, not the professional authorities. If we must implement any type of gun control, let's start with police forces, like the LAPD, who have threatened almost as much life and property as Dorner has.

In any case, I see no grounds for banning the sale of AR-15s from the public. The citizenry should have equal access to the same weapons the police use for the sake of their own defense, against mad-men like Dorner, and as a deterrent to unlawful home searches/invasions. The gun laws in California make people sitting sheep. Such gun bans ultimately lead to more situations like this, where the authorities, who enjoy exclusive weapon access, are free to abuse the use of force and violate the lives and rights of those who they supposedly protect and serve.

[McCulloch]

But as for my post, I'm just trying to poke holes in the idea that guns are somehow safer in the hands of government employees

Yes, there are exceptions, but overall, guns are safer in the hands of a regulated and trained group of people, than the general public. Public employees who abuse their weapons can and should be held accountable. If there are police forces which conduct unlawful searches, it is for the courts to deal with. When the courts rule that a search is inadmissible, then the motivation for these unlawful searches evaporates. The weaknesses that you point out are not going to be solved by an armed citizenry, but by public accountability of the police forces. Something that is apparently lacking in your country.

In any case, I see no grounds for banning the sale of AR-15s from the public. The citizenry should have equal access to the same weapons the police use for the sake of their own defense, against mad-men like Dorner, and as a deterrent to unlawful home searches/invasions.

How would that work? The police SWAT team comes to your house, armed to the teeth, break down the door and begin their search. Do you think that in your pajamas holding one AR-15 that you would be an effective deterrent to their activities? What if there really was a dangerous armed madman hiding in your basement? Should the police have to bring you down first in order to apprehend him? Do you have a death wish?

The gun laws in California make people sitting sheep. Such gun bans ultimately lead to more situations like this, where the authorities, who enjoy exclusive weapon access, are free to abuse the use of force and violate the lives and rights of those who they supposedly protect and serve.

As a career option, the police will attract a few nutjobs who get off on a power trip with their weapons. Responsible police forces are aware of this and take action to remove such persons. I don't know the LAPD, but by your description, it seems as if it is not acting as a responsible police force. The answer to this apparent weakness is political and administrative not military.

[Darias]

But as for my post, I'm just trying to poke holes in the idea that guns are somehow safer in the hands of government employees

Yes, there are exceptions...

While a case such as this one doesn't happen everyday, illegal searches and arrests happen all the time. The mentality of Shoot first and ask questions later is in no way monopolized by the LAPD either.

but overall, guns are safer in the hands of a regulated and trained group of people, than the general public.

Anyone can learn how to point and shoot. And there is no difference between a responsible gun owner in the general public and a responsible gun owner in a police force. The problem is that there are a lot of police departments, some big and some small; many have a history of corruption and the Supreme Court ruled that they are not obligated to protect anyone -- the motto is just a motto and that's it. At least in the UK, the police don't have an enormous advantage over the public since neither can carry guns.

I just don't like my tax dollars going to buffoons with badges and big guns -- and them getting a pass because "they're under a lot of stress right now" or "they may not have it together, but they're just an exception to the rule that government is always responsible, respectful of rights, and knows what it's doing."

Public employees who abuse their weapons can and should be held accountable.

Employees of the government should be held accountable... by the government. Do you see the issue here? The LAPD is re-opening the case that led to Dorner's termination. If you have an organization with a history of abuse, and a cop reports that and is terminated for that can you be surprised? Does a corrupt government regulate itself?

I can't promise you anything but the cops that opened fire on two cars, neither of which were the make and model of Dorner's vehicle -- they're going to get a pass. Sure the victims can sue, but cops, good cops or bad cops in reputable police departments or otherwise -- cops protect their own.

If there are police forces which conduct unlawful searches, it is for the courts to deal with.

The LAPD aren't the only ones who do this. Unconstitutional searches happen all the time. And ever since the Patriot act codified what was once unconstitutional into law, these things happen on a regular, daily basis. We have our rights, until the authorities deem them null and void (for our safety of course, there's always that excuse)

When the courts rule that a search is inadmissible, then the motivation for these unlawful searches evaporates.

But that's after the fact. You have a right not to have your home invaded and ransacked -- after the police already did that at 5 am last week.

The weaknesses that you point out are not going to be solved by an armed citizenry, but...

I never said it could. But I did imply that gun laws contributed to this issue. If it was well known that most people have AR-15s, police departments might be more careful when conducting raids, especially ones without warrant. But since California has such strict gun-laws, the police can abuse their authority without fear for their own safety. And they can enjoy the privilege of knowing most people would allow them to do whatever, and even forgive them for shooting up their vehicles because "they were just trying to do their jobs."

...by public accountability of the police forces. Something that is apparently lacking in your country.

Most police aren't trained in what your rights are, apart from the Miranda rights. You are allowed to film police activities on public or your own property. You are not obligated by law to give your name or your information or your plans for the evening to the police. The way the police get around this is by asking for it -- and if you don't comply they view that as suspicious or as resisting a police officer. Standing up for your rights is a good way of asking for a night in jail.

This is because most people are sheep, and they do what they are told by someone with a badge and a gun, even if it violates their own rights. The few of us who don't put up with that sort of thing are just asking to get tazed or arrested.

This problem would be solved if most Americans knew more about their rights and didn't say "oh its okay if we ban guns," "oh, its okay if we use drones to spy on and kill Americans," or "its okay if you can barge into my home." I blame this sheepish mentality on those who believe that government should have a monopoly on force -- that government knows best and wants to protect us.

As a career option, the police will attract a few nutjobs who get off on a power trip with their weapons.

You're being very generous by saying "a few." Of course I'm not saying that all cops are bad; my own dad is a good one. But there is such a thing as the blue line, and there is such a thing as racism in town departments. And there's politics, and corruption. The police aren't angels, or even unique amongst men. Most people are viewed as suspects, and police don't generally care about Constitutional rights.

Responsible police forces are aware of this and take action to remove such persons. I don't know the LAPD, but by your description, it seems as if it is not acting as a responsible police force. The answer to this apparent weakness is political and administrative not military.

Well, the LAPD did take action against one of their own and look what happened. And now they are working with the Feds to track him down. But in any case I don't think more government can fix bad government. An internal LAPD investigation isn't going to fix anything. That's just something they say to appease the public.

[pmprcv]

Ideally, weapons shouldn't be necessary. However, since they are, at least conscript their use to people with proper training and license and whose job is to use them to protect justice and common good.

[dusk]

Come on seriously. You are seriously on the fringe there.

You want perfect police officers than pay them top dollar and recruit them from the top places with the best education. You don't want any police than your neighbors might disagree as they prefer someone who goes after the bad guys.
If the police knows, they have to deal with all kinds of nutjobs with AR-15s at their home, it won't make them more cautious. If anything they are way more trigger happy because they don't like getting shot either. Being in a RAID where you storm through a door with potentially armed guys who intend to shoot you at the other side, doesn't exactly help to keep a cool head. The more fear the more mistakes and overzealous shooting happens.

If you want the police force better controlled there is a simple measure of financing more IA.

Here in Austria I much prefer the monopoly of force in the governments hands. I was in the army and was running around with a loaded Steyr AUG A1. We had to learn some laws through and through of what we are allowed to do and how to react. So had a friend of mine who works at the police. Some random person that manages to get a permit has not spent a lot of time studying all laws and procedures how to react. I am quite sure who is the more trigger happy.

Unless one lives somewhere like a Favela or Ghetto with serious crime running wild and the police not being able to handle it I think weapons are way to effective at killing and harming people to be handed and used by just anyone. In my experience the really gun happy folks are also the last ones I want running around with one.

[Darias]

Come on seriously. You are seriously on the fringe there.

In what way? In reference to what, to the people that think only government should have guns? I find that position extreme as well. But that really doesn't get us anywhere in debate. I think you have to weigh the facts and determine which side is more reasonable before you go and dismiss an idea just because you're unfamiliar with it.

You want perfect police officers than pay them top dollar and recruit them from the top places with the best education.

I think you'll find that I'm not making this argument at all. I'm using this case to demonstrate that employees of the government are not perfect, and in some cases far from it. Why do you think I would be in favor of even more government theft (involuntary taxation) to organizations such as the LAPD? Given their track record, how can I trust that the government will spend the money in an efficient way? Would they be more likely to hire 5 average cops or 1 experienced and restrained cop?

You don't want any police than your neighbors might disagree as they prefer someone who goes after the bad guys.

I expressed no such sentiments. I consider myself a minarchist not a voluntarist, so I do see a need for a impartial defense force, justice system, and police -- funded by voluntary taxes. My primary concern for this thread is the popular idea that governments have "the sole right" to force, including arms. Moreover, the philosophy behind this idea that argues that government knows best, big government is necessary, or that the limitations of governments are not to be discussed. The people who see government as "our protector, our provider" -- who unknowingly put it in the same category as a benevolent god. I think that this type of thinking is what gives governments more power at the expense of people's rights -- in this case the right to self-defense.

If the police knows, they have to deal with all kinds of nutjobs with AR-15s at their home, it won't make them more cautious. If anything they are way more trigger happy because they don't like getting shot either.

My dad worked for the force for over 15 years and whenever they did a raid, and they knew the suspect had weapons, they would always take every precaution.

However there are many cases in the United States of police departments raiding the wrong house, even killing people inside. It goes to reason that in places that have stricter gun laws, or fewer weapons than the US, that raids can happen more frequently without regard to legality or fear of officer safety -- since the government has all the guns.

Being in a RAID where you storm through a door with potentially armed guys who intend to shoot you at the other side, doesn't exactly help to keep a cool head. The more fear the more mistakes and overzealous shooting happens.

This is a case where you announce yourself and call in a negotiator.

If you want the police force better controlled there is a simple measure of financing more IA.

I'm sorry, not sure what you mean by IA. What I do know is that internal investigations are as about as effective as putting the Catholic Church in charge of weeding out pedophiles among their ranks.

Here in Austria I much prefer the monopoly of force in the governments hands.

It really doesn't matter where you are from, the principle is the same. The governments with stricter gun laws and gun bans tend to be more powerful; the UK is a complete nanny state. And North Korea and China also love gun laws -- for the "safety" of their own people of course. "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun." Governments who have such power are more likely to control and fight their own people -- like Syria for example. Private gun ownership is severely restricted; and they send in tanks to fight defenseless people. These gun bans and the war Syria is waging against its own people encourages black market purchases.

Countries that lack a "gun culture" such as Nazi Germany, North Korea, and China tend to be horrible places to live in. Sure, it's not a Western... but the governments there aren't very free now are they?

I was in the army and was running around with a loaded Steyr AUG A1. We had to learn some laws through and through of what we are allowed to do and how to react. So had a friend of mine who works at the police.

Well that's nice, but apparently it isn't available for all armed forces, or it doesn't sink in very well. If you have no regard for the civil or constitutional rights of people, anything can be justified by the state. And a people who are illiterate about liberty give their state full consent to take their rights away.

Some random person that manages to get a permit has not spent a lot of time studying all laws and procedures how to react. I am quite sure who is the more trigger happy.

I find it tiresome that people have this idea that the cops are among the most trained elites -- much like the mythical 300. But that law abiding citizens are clueless, trigger-happy fools. What we see in this case is the opposite.

I favor gun ownership because law abiding, responsible gun owners should have the right to defend themselves before the cops get there to write a casualty report.

Although Sam Harris is in favor of licensed gun ownership (which I am wary of for a number of reasons), even he makes the point that in the case of a mass shooting -- worrying about getting caught in a crossfire is highly illogical, when the only one in the room with a gun is a madman.

Unless one lives somewhere like a Favela or Ghetto with serious crime running wild and the police not being able to handle it I think weapons are way to effective at killing and harming people to be handed and used by just anyone.

Average citizens are not required to learn the legalities and the ins and outs. This is because they aren't tasked with policing their community. People own guns to defend themselves and their property -- or to hunt, or for sport. The only one responsible for your safety is you. In the US, the supreme court ruled that officers are not obligated to protect you.

Look at the riots that occurred in London in the summer of 2011. Law abiding citizens were not allowed to own weapons of any kind -- guns, knives, or pepper spray. And so, their shops and homes were looted and burned down. The criminal threat was not mediated by the police, who were themselves toothless. Sure guns can kill people, but people can die without them just as easily. Guns are a deterrent to crime and tyranny, this is why I'm pro-gun.

In my experience the really gun happy folks are also the last ones I want running around with one.

... like the LAPD? Yeah, I can agree with you there.

[Darias]

Ideally, weapons shouldn't be necessary.

Reality knows no utopia. I'm personally uncomfortable around guns. But I do want to own one for my own defense. I plan on acquiring it legally, in accordance with the laws where I will live -- I plan on taking courses on how to properly use it, and I plan on storing it safely at all times. This is because I have a right to my own self-defense as outlined by the Constitution, and because I don't trust the government will save me when an armed madman or crook is at my door.

The idea that guns shouldn't be necessary, or that gun bans can ever eliminate enough guns to prevent criminals from obtaining or making their own (3D printers make that so much easier) -- the only thing it does is tie the hands of the law abiding. Law abiding obey gun laws and magazine clip restrictions -- criminals don't.

However, since they are, at least conscript their use to people with proper training and license and whose job is to use them to protect justice...

It doesn't take much skill to point and shoot or reload. In a scenario where a madman is running into a university shooting everyone, I'll take the inexperienced armed grandma over nothing any day. But yes, I am all in favor of responsible gun ownership, just as I am in favor of being responsible about anything.

What I am wary about is the idea that you must take 5 courses and register yourself withe the FBI and other things that invade privacy and make gun ownership more difficult, in an effort of the state to discourage it. Criminals don't bother with any of that and they seem to know how to use guns pretty effectively.

The idea that "thou alone art worthy of having arms, O' State" borders on dangerous statist thinking. And people's lives, property and rights are the victims of it.

...common good.

I always cringe when I see or hear this word. This is because it is so vague and can be highjacked by states and politicians to advance their own agendas. The idea that government cares about maximizing the rights and freedoms of its people, or that it wants to keep us all safe and happy is a naive fantasy. Of course, it's always convenient when the goals of government coincide with humanitarian efforts, but government is all about power and power projection. Maybe that's easier for me to conclude because as an American I know more about my government and its history than others might.