OFFS: The Forsakening

[Hugh Akston]

BTW, I recently read a few discussions on the anarchist perspective on gun control; most participants were left-anarchists (I think because most people who identify with the anarchist label are left-anarchists), and most of them rejected the idea, pointing out that control implies a controller. There were one or two Bakuninites who said things like "Well, all arms should be kept in community armories, managed by democratically elected committees..." but even in left-anarchist forums they tended to be hooted at by those who asked how that wasn't just government under a different name.

Cartoon heart emoji

[JasonL]

Oh no it's deffo not limited to the left, but branding of the left suggests they might want less of that and I think that's not true. They love to make things be put through a democratic process then, provided the votes go in accordance with their values, brutally enforce adherence to the now blessed right and true state of the law.

[Eric the .5b]

I imagine the anti-gun counter argument is cops shouldn't have them either and ultimately when we get rid of all guns cops won't need them. Then we can get to banning knives.

That's exactly the argument I see among Blues and Europeans on the subject. I also see Blues using "anyone could have a gun!" to justify no-knock paramilitary raids.

(As I mentioned in another thread, I went shopping for a Swiss Army Knife out of spite after encountering a bunch of Brits online who kept hyperventilating about why anyone would be such a monster as to want to own and carry such a deadly killing implement.)

[Eric the .5b]

I don't think it's even really limited to the left. Most people want to be ruled by a Great King, who has the power to do anything he wants, as long as he's their kind of king.

BTW, I recently read a few discussions on the anarchist perspective on gun control; most participants were left-anarchists (I think because most people who identify with the anarchist label are left-anarchists), and most of them rejected the idea, pointing out that control implies a controller. There were one or two Bakuninites who said things like "Well, all arms should be kept in community armories, managed by democratically elected committees..." but even in left-anarchist forums they tended to be hooted at by those who asked how that wasn't just government under a different name.

And yet, all the self-described "anarchists" I run into are all-in on gun-grabbing. But then, as people have pointed out, "anarchist" gets used by some marxists the same way "libertarian" was getting used by some conservatives a decade back.

[Eric the .5b]

OFFS what could possibly go wrong:

Screen All Adult Patients for Drug Abuse, National Panel Urges

It should then be insisted that doctors start every appointment with a reading of Miranda rights.

I just like the whole, "We urge this be done! Side note—we really don't have any studies that suggest this would be a good thing, so we also need more studies so we can find some to back up our urging." thing

[Mo]

For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.

This is an extremely solid argument IMO.

This is what I've felt too. If they're only good for killing as many people as possible as fast as possible, why do the police have them? Of course, every time I bring up some variation of this argument, I get responses like, "Cops might need to face bad guys who are heavily armed! Cops are special and different! You're not being serious! You want everyone to have an AR-15!" etc. etc.

I imagine the anti-gun counter argument is cops shouldn't have them either and ultimately when we get rid of all guns cops won't need them. Then we can get to banning knives.

It works here and guns aren't banned here. Some cops have guns, but the average beat cop does not. The thing is if you need those sorts of weapons, it shouldn't be the patrolman dealing with it, it should be the SWAT team. It's the whole reason why you need special weapons and/or tactics.

[Aresen]

For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.

This is an extremely solid argument IMO.

This is what I've felt too. If they're only good for killing as many people as possible as fast as possible, why do the police have them? Of course, every time I bring up some variation of this argument, I get responses like, "Cops might need to face bad guys who are heavily armed! Cops are special and different! You're not being serious! You want everyone to have an AR-15!" etc. etc.

I imagine the anti-gun counter argument is cops shouldn't have them either and ultimately when we get rid of all guns cops won't need them. Then we can get to banning knives.

It works here and guns aren't banned here. Some cops have guns, but the average beat cop does not. The thing is if you need those sorts of weapons, it shouldn't be the patrolman dealing with it, it should be the SWAT team. It's the whole reason why you need special weapons and/or tactics.

Unfortunately, some police departments feel SWAT teams are required for parking scofflaws.

[lunchstealer]

For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.

This is an extremely solid argument IMO.

This is what I've felt too. If they're only good for killing as many people as possible as fast as possible, why do the police have them? Of course, every time I bring up some variation of this argument, I get responses like, "Cops might need to face bad guys who are heavily armed! Cops are special and different! You're not being serious! You want everyone to have an AR-15!" etc. etc.

I imagine the anti-gun counter argument is cops shouldn't have them either and ultimately when we get rid of all guns cops won't need them. Then we can get to banning knives.

It works here and guns aren't banned here. Some cops have guns, but the average beat cop does not. The thing is if you need those sorts of weapons, it shouldn't be the patrolman dealing with it, it should be the SWAT team. It's the whole reason why you need special weapons and/or tactics.

I should note that I don't make an exception for SWAT teams. No MP5s, no M4s, no AR15s. If we accept the argument that the AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, then even SWAT teams shouldn't need them, because they still aren't trying to kill as many as possible.

[Mo]

There are situations where a SWAT team may need to take out a number of people quickly. It’s rare, but not unheard of.

[thoreau]

Whatever one's opinion on SWAT and other exceptional circumstances, my view is that if a beat cop routinely carries it on their belt or in their patrol car then we should be able to own it as well, and if we aren't allowed to own it then ordinary cops shouldn't be issued it either.

[D.A. Ridgely]

Whatever one's opinion on SWAT and other exceptional circumstances, my view is that if a beat cop routinely carries it on their belt or in their patrol car then we should be able to own it as well, and if we aren't allowed to own it then ordinary cops shouldn't be issued it either.

That's crazy talk! How are cops going to kill people's dogs for no good reason if they're not armed?

[lunchstealer]

One of a continuing series “most shitty things are that way because people want them that way”, I don’t think you’d get much disarming the cops talk from the left. They fucking love jackboots they can control for the greater good. Love love love the absolute monopoly of force.

I don't think it's even really limited to the left. Most people want to be ruled by a Great King, who has the power to do anything he wants, as long as he's their kind of king.

BTW, I recently read a few discussions on the anarchist perspective on gun control; most participants were left-anarchists (I think because most people who identify with the anarchist label are left-anarchists), and most of them rejected the idea, pointing out that control implies a controller. There were one or two Bakuninites who said things like "Well, all arms should be kept in community armories, managed by democratically elected committees..." but even in left-anarchist forums they tended to be hooted at by those who asked how that wasn't just government under a different name.

This is the "Once communist perfection has been achieved and the counterrevolutionaries are properly educated, the state will fade away" brand of anarchy. In the meantime these anarchists will happy to see the boot stomping on the faces of the people who aren't in line.

[Dangerman]

'in the meantime' like that isn't actually the point.

[Eric the .5b]

Whatever one's opinion on SWAT and other exceptional circumstances, my view is that if a beat cop routinely carries it on their belt or in their patrol car then we should be able to own it as well, and if we aren't allowed to own it then ordinary cops shouldn't be issued it either.

This seems like a reasonable tentative standard.

[lunchstealer]

'in the meantime' like that isn't actually the point.

Have you been the boot? It's fun to be the boot.

[Pham Nuwen]

'in the meantime' like that isn't actually the point.

Have you been the boot? It's fun to be the boot.

Just remember only the right people are the boot otherwise it's tyranny!

[Jasper]

Might may not make right, but it's fuckin' fun.

[Warren]

I do not enjoy being the boot. In fact I'm really incapable of being the boot. Not fun for me. Zero fun.

[Pham Nuwen]

I do not enjoy being the boot. In fact I'm really incapable of being the boot. Not fun for me. Zero fun.

Don't worry. You are a visual booter with your grammar and poor taste in general.

[Aresen]

I like to wear good boots.



With jodphurs. And spurs. And carry a crop.

And a monocle, of course.

[lunchstealer]

And pearl-handled pistols?

[Warren]

I do not enjoy being the boot. In fact I'm really incapable of being the boot. Not fun for me. Zero fun.

Don't worry. You are a visual booter with your grammar and poor taste in general.

Son, first you go out and acquire some taste, and then you'll see how much more sophisticated my taste is.

[Pham Nuwen]

No u?

[Aresen]

And pearl-handled pistols?

Actually, ivory handles. Pearl is for der Amerikaners.

And a cigarette holder.

And a funny accent.

[lunchstealer]

I believe the exact quote is,

“Son, only a pimp in a Louisiana whore- house carries pearl-handled revolvers. These are ivory.”