• NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bingo! This guy just shot his own argument in the foot. (pun intend) “So if police have no obligation to protect the community they patrol than not having a gun should be a problem.” but simultaneously boot lickers will also argue they need guns to stop the methical bad guy with a gun. Remember everyone, giving the state/government a license to do violence will never just be used against just those “bad people / enemies” it will also be used to subjugate the citizens

    • jasory@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except that wasn’t the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.

      “It will also be used to subjugate the citizen”

      All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.

      The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.