submitted 8 months ago by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
🀑 1
 

[in front of a protesting crowd, two characters are talking]
[blue, serious] Violence is never the solution
[purple, smug] Agreed, let's disarm the police

[blue is now shown angrily gesticulating, sweating bullets]
NO,
NOT
LIKE
THIS

https://thebad.website/comic/my_little_state_violence

top 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

Violence never being the solution isn't true to begin with.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Some countries do have unarmed police (though usually there are special armed units).

    It works really well!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    What's the definition of armed in this case? Firearms only, or does pepper spray also count?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I was talking about guns, but I think most don't carry pepper spray either.

    See e.g. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-do-not-carry-guns.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Mmh, I see some mention of pepper spray. What most definitely carry are battons. Also can we talk about how god damn based Norway is, making Police a highly educated force with mandatory studies in ethics and sociology? That's the way.

    Under this model, success is achieved not through high numbers of arrests, but rather is preventative with an emphasis on defusing tensions and focussing on the frequently underlying causes of crime such as poverty, addiction, and mental illness.

    Some countries really understood it. Only with these things combined (as well as proper pay, healthcare etc) a police can be trusted with the right and privilege to enforce law. Still without daily gun carrying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    france, and UK i think, probably Spain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Spain has many different police forces with different rules, but usually the cops you see on the street have a pistol on their hip and it's typical to see bigger guns when they're guarding something.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (48 children)

    Let's get some stats, shall we?

    Since 1982, in the US, about 1130 people have died from mass shootings.

    American police in that same amount of time has killed over 38000 people.

    The problem has never been AR-15s, or the lack of background checks, or anything of the sort. It's always been the pigs. But liberal suburbans enjoy the benefits of the pigs protecting their property while they kill poorer people, so telling them this makes them stare blankly, or they double down and continue to whine about weapons of war, to which I say: If you're so concerned with weapons of war being in the streets, why does every law banning AR-15s add exemptions to the police?

  • source
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    What about shootings that aren't mass shootings? Why are you not counting those?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Because we have lost more civilians to gun violence than every US soldier in every war ever combined in the last 30 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    While an interesting statistic, it doesn't really answer the question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    The answer is 1.5 million citizens. That is how much we have lost in the last three decades. The huge amount is the reason we do not talk about it.

    Any normal country that was losing the equivalent of a war in population loss every year would be in crisis. It would be a huge issue.

    But it is not, we won't talk about it. Congress passed laws so we can't study it. It is taboo because there is something much more important than this huge loss of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago (41 children)
  • [–] 33 points 8 months ago* (40 children)

    Not at all. This article with a spreadsheet by Mother Jones show that there's been about 1128 mass shooting deaths in the US since 1982, using active shooter incident data. And this paper by The Lancer estimates about 30800 deaths by the police since 1982 until 2019. Adding the data from Wikipedia for police killings from the last few years (2019-2026) gives us about 38028 people killed by the American police since 1982, so I was a little off. Even so, taking all that into account, police in america is 33 times deadlier than mass shooters.

    Wake up to reality, kid. Your pigs are worse than people who go to schools to kill children because they're omegasuicidal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 8 months ago* (23 children)

    Those statistics can't be directly compared to each other because the number of mass shooters is significantly lower than the amount of police interactions with the public.

    It's like saying more people die in crashes with combustion vehicles compared to EVs. Of course that's true because there's more combustion vehicles on the road.

    You need a ratio to do any comparison here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    This is about both of those as a collective, not per capita. The context is pretty clear here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    When we're trying to do an Apples to Apples comparison, implying cops are more deadly than mass shooters, context is important.

    Put a kid in front of a mass shooter, they'll shoot them.

    Put a kid in front of a cop, they'll shoot them 0.00001% of the time (citation needed, feel free to do the math on total police encounters vs. shootings of children).

    That's bad, but to state or imply that they're even close to as bad is ridiculous and makes people interested in police reform look ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    implying cops are more deadly than mass shooters, context is important.

    Context doesn't bring dead people back to life. Reducing higher numbers of dead to a "per capita" statistic is straight up lying to dismiss the pain of communities destroyed by police violence.

    Put a kid in front of a cop, they’ll shoot them 0.00001% of the time

    Unless they're black and holding something, on which case it becomes 100%.

    makes people interested in police reform look ridiculous.

    You cannot reform the police. If you heard what they say about civilians in a daily basis you'd be demanding all of their heads on pikes like everyone who wants ICE to be abolished and every agent trialed for crimes against humanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Context doesn’t bring dead people back to life.

    True, but refutes nothing I said.

    Reducing higher numbers of dead to a β€œper capita” statistic is straight up lying to dismiss the pain of communities destroyed by police violence.

    I don't think you know what "lying" means.

    Unless they’re black and holding something, on which case it becomes 100%.

    A straight up lie. See earlier point about ridiculous arguments.

    You cannot reform the police.

    You definitely can. Virtually all societies have improved their police over the short and long term.

    If you heard what they say about civilians in a daily basis you’d be demanding all of their heads on pikes like everyone who wants ICE to be abolished and every agent trialed for crimes against humanity.

    No I wouldn't. I generally do not call for the execution of assholes, let alone displaying their corpses to out-do them on cruelty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    A straight up lie.

    Look up Tamir Rice.

    Virtually all societies have improved their police over the short and long term.

    Rread this article about how the police works internally by an ex-officer. There is nothing that can be done at this point to reform the American police other than a complete do-over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago

    Look up Tamir Rice.

    I'm well aware of Tamir Rice. You're completely unaware of how statistics work.

    Unless you think Tamir Rice is 100% of black children holding things, and no black child has ever held anything before nor will hold anything again? That's your position here?

    Rread this article about how the police works internally by an ex-officer. There is nothing that can be done at this point to reform the American police other than a complete do-over.

    So your counter to my statement of fact that law enforcement has been reformed over time is some interview with a single guy, and your re-statement of an impossible to prove or disprove position?

    M8, are you intentionally wasting both of our time? What are you trying to accomplish by such obvious bad faith tactics?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (15 children)

    we're not calculating how much more dangerous a cop is compared to a mass shooter.

    It showcases that Americans are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a mass shooter. and that police must change in a very fundamental way, from abolishing to defunding it and definitely disarm them from lethal weapons, and make it illegal for them to misuse force (criminal prosecution for assault with no police immunity)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    we're not calculating how much more dangerous a cop is compared to a mass shooter.

    Then why, in your very next sentence, do you compare how dangerous a cop is to a mass shooter?

    I'm not saying you're wrong at all, I'm saying the figures being used don't support that assessment. They're just numbers without any meaningful context to compare them with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    How do you feel about doctors killing 50-100x as many Americans per year as cops do?

    Do you make the same calls to abolish medicine and hospitals?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    it means you're an idiot. the cops aren't preventing death with limited success, they are the ones killing people.

    Abolishing cops (use funding for actual community) will lower the amount of death they cause. Abolishing doctors (already a thing given it's provatised and therefore not even in the same conversation) will only increase death.

    Please take a chance to think before you type

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    What question are you answering with that?

    How do you feel about XYZ?

    "it means you're an idiot."

    or

    Do you XYZ?

    "it means you're an idiot."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • it means your comparison is disingenuous, and either you're a troll stupid enough to call that a "gotcha" or just plain stupid.

    imagine the statement of "going too fast is dangerous and causes a lot of death", and someone replies "well, you're using a phone that moves information packets at nearly the speed of light? should we ban phones?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago* (7 children)

    Lots of people want medical practice to be changed. If you're fat, a woman, a POC, a trans person, or neurodivergent, you'd know why a lot of those people just don't fucking trust doctors at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    I haven't heard a single person call for doctors to be abolished, despite them being 50-100x more deadly, and yes, despite them being just as bigoted as cops, as you rightfully point out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    Cops kill people directly, doctors usually don't. That's the difference. My comparison between cops and mass shooters was about how many people they kill directly. Doctors don't usually murder people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So intent is the main thing, for you? One malicious murder is worse than a hundred negligent manslaughters?

    Is there not more intent to murder involved in a mass shooter than a cop shooting someone trying to shoot the cop? Or are you one of those people who thinks that cops only sign up to be cops because they'll have a better chance to kill people, and every single death-by-cop is murder, even in self-defense?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    than a cop shooting someone trying to shoot the cop?

    Cops have a less dangerous job than pizza delivery. Yes, per capita. And COVID or a cop’s own bad driving is more likely to kill them than someone with a gun.

    If you wouldn’t accept a pizza delivery kid blowing someone away because they reached into their pocket, you shouldn’t accept it from a cop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Cops have a less dangerous job than pizza delivery. Yes, per capita. And COVID or a cop’s own bad driving is more likely to kill them than someone with a gun.

    Depending on your definition of "less dangerous," yeah. Doesn't really refute my argument, though. Did you want to divert the discussion with that Red Herring because you realized you were wrong or did you just want to talk about something else today and didn't realize that's outside the scope of this discussion?

    If you wouldn’t accept a pizza delivery kid blowing someone away because they reached into their pocket, you shouldn’t accept it from a cop.

    Straw-man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Depending on your definition of β€œless dangerous,” yeah

    I’m not aware of any definition of β€œless dangerous” that involves the more dangerous job having less deaths and injuries than the less dangerous job.

    Did you want to divert the discussion with that Red Herring because you realized you were wrong

    Want to slow your roll and figure out if you’re talking to the same person before going off?

    Straw-man.

    Not at all. If your argument is that cops should get to have guns and shoot people because their job is dangerous, so should pizza delivery drivers, who are more likely to get assaulted than cops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 8 months ago*

    I’m not aware of any definition of β€œless dangerous” that involves the more dangerous job having less deaths and injuries than the less dangerous job.

    I personally think "likelihood of being attacked" and "ability to defend themselves" should also be included in the definition we're working with. Like if Person A is attacked 5 times a day and defends against them without injury 4/5 times, but Person B is attacked 3 times a day and is not trained or equipped to defend themselves so they're hurt 3 times a day, which person is in the more "dangerous" position?

    Want to slow your roll and figure out if you’re talking to the same person before going off?

    Fair enough, I didn't (and routinely don't) check usernames before responding. Sounds exhausting. Pedantry accepted though; feel free to redact the part of that comment that involves my asking if you realized you were wrong and replace it with something about you realizing they were wrong. Better? You ready to respond to my pointing out that you're doing a Red Herring now, or is there some other pedantic thing you want to focus on to distract from the broad strokes of you screwing up?

    Not at all. If your argument is that cops should get to have guns and shoot people because their job is dangerous, so should pizza delivery drivers, who are more likely to get assaulted than cops.

    Yep, I also believe delivery drivers should be allowed to carry a gun. Same with taxi cab drivers and other people who are more likely to be (successfully) attacked and hurt or killed than cops are.

    See how using a straw-man argument can make for an awkward situation where you fleshing out your attack into a(n implied) question about their real position can make you look like a fool?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (15 children)

    police in america is 33 times deadlier than mass shooters.

    AI Overview Estimates of mass shooters in U.S. history vary widely based on definitions, with studies identifying roughly 172 to 298 "public mass shooters" between 1966 and 2024.

    As of 2023, there were approximately 720,652 law enforcement officers in the United States, according to Statista.

    Yea you're just bad at statistics. Which is not mutually exclusive with ACAB btw.

    Like this is the reason math teachers don't accept just the answer. One can arrive at the correct answer while still being terrible at math.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] 27 points 8 months ago (7 children)
  • [+] -8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    Buddy ACAB all the way. But you and everyone upvoting you are shit at math. Hive mind af.

    edit: Especially your bit about the AR15. WTF does that have to do with your stats? 90% of the police shootings I see are with handguns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    What I meant with that is that all the gun control push to ban AR-15s because they're used in active shooter incidents from liberals is bullshit because there is a much bigger problem of police violence in America that suburban liberals refuse to address because they benefit from it.

    Also, you posting an AI overview immediately makes me think you're posting in bad faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago

    AI overview immediately makes me think you're posting in bad faith.

    I'm literally just agreeing with the guy saying this is a bad use of statistics. Glad to see the reddit hive mind is alive and well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    You replied to me and are defending OP so don't complain that i'm throwing salt at your math skills.

    The fact that your NOT op makes it worse. Means I nailed it with the hive mind accusation.

    You defs missed the part about getting the right answer with the wrong math. I'm not arguing that police aren't deadlier than shooters. I'm pointing out the math he used to back it up is bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Why is the number of mass shooters and police themselves relevant here? We're talking about the deaths the respective groups caused, and you haven't provided any counter-evidence/stats for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    First off because I'm not disagreeing with his thesis. I'm agreeing with the commentor, who also neglected to disagree with his thesis, who said his use of statistics were flawed.

    As to your first question.

    He's comparing total deaths from shooters and police.

    But if you add up the total number of individuals that have committed mass shootings it's gonna total like what 1000? 2000?

    Meanwhile there's at minimum 700,000 police officers in the USA right now (not including ICE-PIGS).

    So his number of 33x more deadly is not accurate, because if the USA had even half as many mass shooters as police the death toll from mass shooters would clearly be larger.

    Hence why it's a bad use of statistics.

    ...

    American's culture of anti-intellectualism is one of the tools the elites use to control the populace. If we can't even have an adult conversation about math than how are we going to unite against our oppressors?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You can say that individual police members aren't more likely than mass shooters to kill people, sure.

    However, it is still true that the police is that big and they still killed much more people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    You're saying "bad at math" and "hive mind" and whatever else, but you aren't actually supporting your argument. What is your argument? How are they wrong? Give supporting evidence or you are going to be ignored. If you have no supporting evidence then you fail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Violence seems to usually be the solution. Waiting for the protests to no longer be peaceful.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I think the final straw will be midterms. It’s, IMO, a fool’s hope that a blue wave would do anything more than those in office already aren’t doing, but I get that most people don’t seek violence. If the elections are called off, winners not recognized, or the fraud/voter suppression is egregious, maybe then. Protests alone do nothing, the rich are rich enough they can survive a general strike longer than any of us can, so voting them out is our last chance to change course peacefully. After that it’s accept the New America or invoke the Amendment of No Return. And seriously, that’s going to suck.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Is this some American joke I'm too Norwegian to get? Yes, because our police don't escalate, they don't serve as some political tool to harass people for political gains, but they are highly qualified since you only make it to police school if you have high marks in most subjects...

    In the US, you could be ruled out of a position as sheriff if you score too high on a damn IQ test.

    See a pattern here, yanks? The more intelligent, the higher their chances are of being stable and capable of having empathy.

    But then again, you do live in a country where the police used an attack helicopter to bomb a housing complex...

    So maybe try community policing for a while?

    "How about no police"

    Yes, yes, and no laws, right? And no military... surely all these things are great ideas.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    "How about no police"

    Literally no one of any consequence is saying to do this, and this is in fact a right wing strawman regularly used to justify increased militarization of police and to smear anyone left of center calling for police reform. You should check your sources for bias, because you're being manipulated to believe something about a nation you do not understand the judicial nuances of to make you engage with ragebait content

    What people are calling for is to disarm all police except special response units (like civilized nations), abolish qualified immunity, require malpractice insurance and personal financial penalties for police, codify laws that force harsh punishments on police who knowingly violate the law and basic rights, disband police "unions", standardize and increase training and licensure requirement across the nation, and move tax dollars away from turning the police into special forces operators and instead put it into community resources that prevent crime in the first place. No one needs to rob the gas station at gunpoint for a few hundred dollars and then get mag-dumped by a feral pig if they're getting UBI and universal healthcare, make sense?

    Oh, and before you tell me I don't understand police or the criminal justice system and all of its flaws in my own nation because I'm a "dumb yank" or whatever, I was in the CJ field for over a decade. I am very aware of how fucked up it all is and what the solutions are.

    Again, no one other than right wing grifters are saying "eliminate all law enforcement". People understand the solutions a lot better than you think, but getting rid of over 200 years of entrenched racism and corruption when the powers that be actively love the racism and corruption isn't an afternoon of work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    "Abolish the police" is essentially shorthand for ending the current institution. Community policing IS the ideal goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    I wouldn’t work as a cop in this country without a gun.

    99% of police work does not require a gun. You don't need a gun to sit on an overpass radaring cars, to show up 8 hours late to a burglary to take a note about what items were stolen to then immediately lose it, to harass homeowners about their lawn or the volume knob position in their stereo, to write a ticket and leave it on someone's parked car... Nothing of that vein requires a gun, and every time guns are added to that mix, someone fucking dies. The cops responded to a kid having an autistic meltdown with a small knife on his hands on his family's lawn, and the cops literally dumped 3 mags into him FROM OVER A FENCE HE COULDN'T JUMP CAUSE HE WAS SITTING ON THE FLOOR. European countries DO have a subsect of police that is heavily armed AND HEAVILY TRAINED to deal with actual shooting incidents, but they're only called when absolutely necessary.

    Violence and physical power trump everything else, which is why we need people who are allowed to use force on our behalf so that we can run our societies based on rules and not who is the best at violence.

    No. You build a better society through cooperation. This is literally about making the state the best at violence so everyone complies. Hard fucking pass, lib.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Violence is always a solution. It's just usually the wrong one being applied by incompetent jackasses against the wrong people.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    those who dont mean what they say with it actually mean "dont resist". Abhorring violence is noble, but bad people have latched on to it like a parasite.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I like the contrapositive of this message of if violence is wrong does that mean you wont stop me if i use violence on the rich?

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    I like how here it say disarm instead of defund or disband. But then disarming the police in US mean police is basically a sitting duck when shit happened because there's like bazillion of people owning gun. I wonder how's that gonna work.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    like it works in nations where the cops don't go around with tools to murder people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Those nations have heavy regulated gun laws though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    and do they have mass shootings on the daily?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    That's not the point. The point is that you can't have a police force that's weaker than the criminals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    yes you can. have a special unit for those cases. the goons on the streets don't need firearms.

    Cops don't need the option to murder me when giving me a speeding ticket.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Police in my country wear guns.

    They never use them because criminals don't shoot at cops.

    You maybe get 1 crazy person per year that deserves to have a weapon drawn at them.

    Your argument implies the inhumane and corrupt American police forces, which are an exception.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I dont think they're saying the concept doesn't work, I think they just mean that its to easy for a bad actor to legally get a gun in the US

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    In this case, the police are the bad actors getting guns.

    maybe without them, they wouldn't feel so comfortable escalating every situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago*

    Correct answer. Even in countries where by and large police aren't armed, they still have a section of specific very heavily trained police who are armed who can be called in if shit goes down. For sitting on an overpass radaring cars, or showing up 16 hours late to write an incident report for the burglary they failed to stop, or harassing some homeowner about the length of his lawn or the volume knob position on his stereo, or any of innumerable other things the police spend most of their day doing they don't need to be toting around guns. The majority of Americans don't, and somehow most of us manage not to get shot on a daily basis despite theoretically rubbing elbows with most of the same criminals that the cops do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    In what nation where the civilian are a bunch of gun nuts and the cop doesn't have gun?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Love that the excuse Americans give for why it's ok for police to carry lethal weapons is "Americans are stupid anf and dangerous!!!"

    Yhea, cops should carry guns. if it is an issue with someone dangerous, call a special unit. Cops have proven themselves too stupid to be trusted with guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί