this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
60 points (94.1% liked)

Comic Strips

16527 readers
1952 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Violence is often the solution, but it shouldn't be the first solution we try.

It's stupid to assert that law enforcement should be completely unarmed. There's absolutely legitimate situations where it's in the public's best interest. Now, the situations that do require it aren't super common, but they exist.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In the US at least, law enforcement is overarmed. We'd cut back on a lot of unnecessary violence if, say, officers kept their guns in the trunk rather than on their hip.

[–] themoken@startrek.website 4 points 1 month ago

Police Union: How could you trample on the sacred rights of the police to escalate any situation into multiple fatalities?

[–] ouch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Or you could do what Finland does, and make an independent investigation every time the police shoots someone.

Violence is always the solution. If there's an example for major changes implemented without at least an implicit threat of violence, that's the absolute exception. All big changes always require (the threat of) violence.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So, a such a situation would require Special Weapons? And maybe Tactics?

SWAT teams exist ostensibly for this reason, but arming everyone works too.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That works a lot better in countries where everyone and their mom doesn't have a gun. Though good god we don't train cops enough to justify giving them a gun