Skip to main content

View Diary: Is That a Gun in Your Hand or Are You Just Trying to Change the Channel? (320 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why? Shouldn't it be the opposite? (5+ / 0-)

    If guns are in every house, shouldn't cops be expecting them?  Shouldn't it be commonplace for them to encounter guns?  Shouldn't they be trained in how to handle those situations?  Instead of pissing themselves in fear for sight of a gun?

    No, if guns were extremely rare, if cops never, ever saw a gun on the street, then I would excuse a shooting like this because the cop was shocked and believed that the rare gun was there to be used.

    With every state having concealed carry, with open carry spreading, and with it being a Constitutional RIGHT to have a gun in one's home, the cops have a duty to get fucking used to it.  And to NOT shoot on sight of a gun, and to have the courage to wait until fired upon.

    Or they can quit the force.

    •  If guns were rare (14+ / 0-)

      cops wouldn't assume whatever they see in someone's hands is a gun.

      "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

      by NWTerriD on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not how fear works (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, nota bene

        A cop scans the scene.  Image recognition in her brain sees "gun!"  adrenaline rushes, heart pounds, fear takes hold.

        Two things can happen next:

        (Guns are common)  Training kicks in:  "Relax officer, not the first time you've seen a gun.  It's not pointed at you yet, you're wearing a vest, he's just a kid.  Get ahold of yourself.  Order the kid to drop the weapon"

        (Guns are rare, and banned)    "Holy shit, an illegal gun, he's going to kill me!"  BLAM, BLAM, BLAM.  "Oh shit, it wasn't a gun".

        Since guns are not rare, since guns are legal, I humbly suggest that cops get fucking used to seeing them!

        What this incident says to me is that the cop WASN'T expecting to see a gun.  Maybe if she had been prepared for it, she wouldn't have freaked out.

        •  If guns were rare (7+ / 0-)

          it would interfere with the first step: "Image recognition" in her brain wouldn't "see 'gun,'" because there was no gun! If guns were rare, that wouldn't be how her brain would fill in the gap of an unknown object in someone's hand.

          If I see something in someone's hand during the school day while I'm teaching, here in blue Seattle, I don't assume, either consciously or subconsciously, that it's a gun. A gun isn't something I would expect to see, so I don't go around seeing guns.

          The reason people see guns where there aren't any is because they have reason to think there's a bunch of guns all over the place. Training on what to do if you see a gun doesn't kick in if you don't see a gun.

          "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

          by NWTerriD on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 11:23:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the police were disarmed, sure (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, JayFromPA, chrisculpepper

            In a perfect world, if no one had a gun, not the people or the police, then sure, a gun wouldn't be a mental image a cop would ever have.

            But cops eat and sleep with their guns.  Carry them every day, train often.  They see guns everyday, and are looking for guns everyday.  Cops are looking for suspects, looking for criminals, looking for trouble, and yes, looking hard for guns.  They expect to see guns, that's what they do.

            When you as a teacher see something in your student's hand you see a pencil, because that's what you do.

            Even if guns were rare, they wouldn't be rare in the hands of criminals, because only criminals would have guns.  A cop would still expect, on busting someone for parole violation, that they might have a gun.  They would expect to see a gun.

            But the question for you is, why would a cop serving a warrant for an adult, expect to see a gun in the hand of a kid?  Even with guns being common, is that what you would expect to see?

            But again, your whole argument depends on the fallacy that a War on Guns would succeed where the War on Drugs failed.

            •  Here is my argument: (4+ / 0-)

              If guns were uncommon in this society, fewer cops would assume that something in someone's hand is a gun when in fact it isn't.

              That's it. That's all I'm saying

              Please explain the mental gyrations by which you conclude that I am thereby advocating a "war on guns" or positing that such a war would succeed.

              "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

              by NWTerriD on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 02:19:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Ha. Expert in "fear". Gun advocate. Surprise. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, wader, a2nite

          "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

          by JVolvo on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 11:37:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Holy crap, teh stoopid. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A big reason many police are trigger-happy is because guns are prevalent.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:59:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site