12 ms·

This makes sense. If one of your political platforms is to weaken and reduce the police force, then buying a gun is a very logical and practical thing to do.

• happytoexplain 10mo ago
  This seems dishonest. Surely the liberal position - on average - is the rejection of dangerous police, even if that means rejecting a large number of police officers, until the police force (nationally and/or locally) is once again a trustworthy foundation of democratic civilization? The unfortunate reality is that, when you have a class of people with authority and guns, even if only a small minority of them are dangerous, that immediately ruins the image of the whole thing until they are rooted out. Americans have historically proven that, if there's one thing they won't stand for, it's being oppressed/frightened by those in power.
  • HeinzStuckeIt 10mo ago
    That might be the liberal position on average, but if you have a social circle that’s lefter than average, as in many metro areas, you’ll occasionally hear a desire for outright abolition of police. Not even a simple local constabulary walking the beat, as there is a meme going around that such law enforcement came out of gangs that hunted down fugitive slaves and is inherently tainted. (Nevermind the existence of such police in countries around the world that never had race-based chattel slavery.) Instead, more investment in social services will supposedly remove the need for them entirely. But of course, whether that position or the number of people who hold it, has any real influence on gun sales is doubtful and the GP may have been a bait post.
    • testing22321 10mo ago
      I have never in my life heard or read anyone, of any social standing, political affiliation, education or station of life discuss the abolition of police entirely. Is this like “they’re eating dogs!”?
      • HeinzStuckeIt 10mo ago
        I have, it’s an originally online meme that has been taken up by some of the people in my life, frankly as a shibboleth for the progressive values they want to be seen as holding. But anecdote aside, a search for "abolish policing slave patrols" will get you plenty of advocacy, e.g. [0] (as well as critique from the opposing end of the ideological spectrum). [0] https://criticalresistance.org/abolish-policing/ https://criticalresistance.org/abolish-policing/
      • tharne 10mo ago
        > I have never in my life heard or read anyone, of any social standing, political affiliation, education or station of life discuss the abolition of police entirely. It was quite literally a slogan and rallying cry.
        • Timon3 10mo ago
          > It was quite literally a slogan and rallying cry. It quite literally wasn't. "Defund" is a different word from "abolish" and has a different meaning. Are you not aware of that difference?
          • Jensson 10mo ago
            Defund can mean both, many who chanted that clarified that they meant abolish. If you wanted people to not misunderstand then use a better word that is clear, since many who were on the pro "defund the police" meant abolish the police. It is your own fault for using a bad slogan.
            • Timon3 10mo ago
              I did not choose the slogan, so you'll have to bring up your complaint with someone else :) Do you have a proposal for an equally short slogan that cannot be misunderstood, especially by the right-wing media machine? I don't believe that such a slogan exists, as pretty much every sentence can be willfully misunderstood.
            • 10mo ago
• lukev 10mo ago
  Quite the opposite. The increased fear is that there will be bad actors (brownshirts, racists, klansmen, etc) that the police are not making an effort to restrain, or even with whom the police are are allied. Your average liberal/progressive is still probably less afraid (relative to the median) about random or property crime.
  • Jensson 10mo ago
    > Your average liberal/progressive is still probably less afraid (relative to the median) about random or property crime. But random crime is much more likely to affect you than brownshirts or klansmen, so that seems irrational.
    • SauciestGNU 10mo ago
      Depends on locale. In Chicago, or now Charlotte, brownshirt encounters are highly elevated.
• seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
  It is more like if you have to worry about masked goons breaking into your house and trying to kidnap you or your family members then maybe you can't trust the government either.
  • kcplate 10mo ago
    Wait, what? I thought the main leftward argument against the necessity of the second amendment was that we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed?
    • _lvbh 10mo ago
      You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits
      • kcplate 10mo ago
        No, this is a weak argument point. We know from experience that urban fighting against small arms is hugely difficult without simply wiping a swath of a population completely out…which our military could do of course, but wouldn’t against a domestic population. We generally wouldn’t even do it against foreign adversaries.
        • happytoexplain 10mo ago
          You may certainly make the argument that a sizable guerilla urban force could perform outside their weight class against a federal army. However, it makes no logical sense to assert that most liberals buying guns do so under the theory that they will organize together against their government, nor that they do or should believe that this piece of military wisdom would work out for them. I.e. it's obviously reasonable to believe that private firearms cannot stand up to the federal government, regardless of whether it is the case under theoretical conditions.
• orwin 10mo ago
  From my understanding, the issue with the police in the US is that they have to do to much, work as EMT, social services, mental health services, community police (proximity police? basically neighborhood cop), peacekeepers (during protests or organized events), investigating, policing traffic... So you actually have a big "company" responsible for something you could dispatch to at least 4 other services (i've heard call to divided it in 7 parts, but i can't find where i read that, so let's be reasonable and say 4), and they have too much political power because of it. Divide the budget accordingly, correctly train teh police and "new police", call it "police" too because branding works and to stop people from crying out in fear ("mental health police" might not be the best brand, but other might work), and actually separate departements, and concerns. Separate training material, separate training place, split the union. Also make a department that will take care of orphaned police kids. "Divide the police" is a way better catchphrase anyway.
• jerlam 10mo ago
  No, this doesn't make any sense because the "liberals" have not been recently voted into power in order to achieve their political platforms. The opposite has occurred - they are the powerless ones.