[drugstorecowboy]

Isn't it implied? If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Unless they are arguing that gun control will solve all future violent crime I don't see how you could say this with a straight face.

If they are "serious" about gun control or not would certainly be up for debate, but I have heard this argument many many times.

[threatofrain]

In this case you would've needed enough guns to subdue the police, as the police were threatening to taser and arrest parents who wanted to save their kids.

There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already at the scene.

[ALittleLight]

Saying that you shouldn't interfere with an ongoing crime implicitly assumes the police are doing something about the crime and not just watching children be murdered. Best case is parents stand back while the police engage - but if the police aren't doing that then all bets are off.

[threatofrain]

The police were doing something. They were threatening the parents with tasers and arrests if they interfered. Does "all bets are off" mean that parents should have enough tactical force to subdue the police? In evaluating potential scenarios, is a shootout with the police on the table of possibilities?

The police even threaten parents with obstruction of justice and violating probation for merely talking to the media about running into the school.

[ALittleLight]

If I happened to be on the jury for a case assessing the murder of an Uvalde police officer by an Uvalde school parent I would not vote "Guilty" under any circumstance.

Realistically, I think what this situation means is that the police, at least in Uvalde, need to be disbanded and reformed and serious steps need to be taken to ensure their failure is not repeated. I think such serious steps include charging the cowardly officers with murder. Future Uvalde officers should know it is more dangerous to refuse to face the school shooter - and one path for that is if they know they will get the death penalty for being complicit in the mass murder of children if they just cower outside while the massacre happens.

[threatofrain]

You're basically asking for a Supreme Court shakeup and an overturning of stare decisis. That's the only way any criminal charge would even be on the table for discussion.

[ALittleLight]

I don't think so.

If I were an Uvalde prosecutor (and I'm not even a lawyer so I have limited knowledge of the law) then I would charge the police on the grounds that they protected the murderer from the parents without actually doing anything to arrest or kill the murderer. The police were effectively serving as protection for the murderer. It would be legal for the police to detain the parents in the course of the police doing their duty - for example, the police could hold the parents back while other officers engaged the shooter, but if the police aren't fulfilling their duties then they have no legal reason to detain the parents and are therefore engaging in criminal acts to facilitate the murder of children.

I would take a list of the children who died and charge all of the non-responsive officers with the murder of the first child on the list under this theory. If a jury rejected it then I would charge the officers for the second child on the list, possibly with an updated theory of the crime to account for double jeopardy or to anticipate the police officers defense, and keep going until I found a sympathetic jury or ran out of victims.

If the supreme court, or any superior court, would overturn this case that would have to happen after the case was decided in the lower courts and while the officers languished in jail and I would fight to delay any overturning as long as possible.

Apart from the law, the basic facts of the matter are that nineteen children were murdered and the police are largely responsible for that fact. Of course the murderer is the one who ultimately killed the children, and bears the most culpability, but the police had ample time and opportunity to engage the murderer and save the children and did not. Morally, the police are absolutely responsible and I think a creative and aggressive prosecutor could find a way to present the fact pattern such that a jury would agree.

[Supermancho]

> There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime

I disagree because I use a different bar for "sufficient". I never have a conversation with people (or online) within the midwest states without a jab at the ineffectiveness of LEOs. There's been a national consensus for awhile, which has been diminished, for sure. For many, Jan 6 was another event showing that the lack of police action can lead to outrageous events that were previously fantasy. Confidence in police (local or not) has been eroding for decades and this is a tentpole event that will be referenced in the future.

[wfhordie]

> If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me?

Gun control does not remove your ability to protect yourself. This is a false premise. Even in a world where the US government institutes mandatory buy backs of anything that looks like a gun, you are not completely devoid of options to protect yourself.

Statistically, aside from some very specific places in the US like the bad parts of LA/Chicago/New York, you are far more likely to die of suicide by firearm than you are of homicide by firearm.

[sevenf0ur]

What self defense tool is as effective as a firearm, especially in hands of a smaller or elderly person? Any gun control measure that restricts firearms makes it harder to defend yourself. I'd like to think you can depend on the police but that's not always the case.

[wfhordie]

> Any gun control measure that restricts firearms makes it harder to defend yourself.

Bump stocks were outlawed. What impact did that have on self-defense?

What impact did restricting assault weapons have on self defense?

You are making a claim here. It is necessary for you to back up your claim with evidence. The goal post already moved from the original comment I replied to, which is fine. To avoid further wriggling, though, we need data.

[sevenf0ur]

You brought up the point of banning (restricting) all firearms. No sense arguing about assault weapons since that's a loosely based term. I think the fact that all the world's police use firearms should point to their effectiveness.

[Apocryphon]

Why aren’t tasers and other nonlethal weapons ever suggested as an alternative to guns for personal defense?

[daenz]

>Why aren't [non-lethal weapons] ever suggested

They are suggested. Many people carry mace/pepper spray. Tasers are finicky and require a fortunate prong placement in the attacker, and the attacker to not be wearing thick clothing, or it just doesn't work. Stun guns require you to be upclose and personal with the attacker. If you're a smaller/weaker person, this is extremely risky.

Most non-lethal weapons are for you to get away from an uncommitted attacker as quickly as possible, not to stop a serious threat in its tracks. If someone has a weapon and intent on killing you, a firearm is your best bet in stopping them.

[Apocryphon]

Makes me wonder why we haven't seen more advancements in this space in the last few decades, especially with the U.S. military overseeing multiple occupations where sublethal weaponry would've been helpful. No startups trying to invent sci-fi stun guns at all?

Years ago I once made a joke that Tesla could pivot into that by inventing a "lightning gun." Given Musk's descent into attention-grabbing memelordom, I'm surprised he hasn't suggested such a possibility yet, to unilaterally solve all these controversies in the news, himself.

[everforward]

It's very hard to create a force that will incapacitate someone without a substantial risk of killing them.

Sufficient blunt force to some area to stun someone will kill them if it hits elsewhere.

Tolerances for electricity are different between people (Tasers do kill people).

Mace and pepperballs don't fully incapacitate someone.

Lightning guns (or really any directed energy weapon) have problems with exponential decay.

Tranquilizer guns might work, although I don't know how wide the dosing range is.

It's a hard problem. People still die from anesthesia, which is basically trying to keep someone incapacitated in a very controlled setting.

[pygy_]

The argument is that fewer guns in circulation decreases violence. That is to the point where cops are unarmed in Norway, most of the UK and Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, Botswana and a dozen smaller countries.

[_-david-_]

The US has been increasing the number of guns and has seen a decrease in violence.

[pygy_]

It might have reached saturation.

Violence is decreasing everywhere else too (dropping lead gasoline and screen time are the probable drivers).

The US is still an outlier as far as gun deaths go.