i-baster wrote:


home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

RWA= right wing authoritarians, the report specifically concentrates on the 'religious right' as seen in the US, however left wing authoritarians follow the same basic mantra.

I didn`t swerve I just do not know and could not say. What would your answer be if it is such an easy question to answer?

Who excluded authority exactly? With a country like America it would be rather foolish to remove guns. There are areas of the states where the criminals are better armed than the cops and perhaps that is changing with the militarization of the police. If you are policing an area then it would make sense to do your best to have the same or better fire power than potential criminals just as people who buy a gun for defense would probably want something equal or better than a potential home invader, rapist etc. Again the main difference is that police are better trained with their weapons and have tighter rules regulating their use. So the issue of arming police is a separate issue. Just as police corruption etc are a different topic. It is not about blindly following authority. Having an AK47 is not going to give me freedom from government any more than growing my own tomatoes will.

andyh wrote: Thanks for dropping that little pdf in there, always enjoy a good pdf

i-baster wrote: This is also true of whether having more guns in general makes society 'safer'. You seem willing to discuss that.

I don't know your answer because you haven't given one.

If there is some other option than the police having more, less or the same number of guns as they do know than I'd like to know what it is! I thought I was pretty good at mathematics, but obviously I'm missing something!

Would we be ‘safer’ if the police had:

a) more guns than they do now;
b) less guns than they do now;
c) or the same number of guns as they do now?

Simple question. I can give you my answer quite easily just as I did when you asked me a direct question.

Who excluded authority exactly? With a country like America it would be rather foolish to remove guns. There are areas of the states where the criminals are better armed than the cops and perhaps that is changing with the militarization of the police. If you are policing an area then it would make sense to do your best to have the same or better fire power than potential criminals just as people who buy a gun for defense would probably want something equal or better than a potential home invader, rapist etc. Again the main difference is that police are better trained with their weapons and have tighter rules regulating their use. So the issue of arming police is a separate issue. Just as police corruption etc are a different topic. It is not about blindly following authority. Having an AK47 is not going to give me freedom from government any more than growing my own tomatoes will.

So what is your answer to your question?

Guevarista wrote:
Its a very big pdf unfortunately

He knew an intense effort
could pay big dividends, as he wrote in The New Millennium in 1990, “With the
apathy that exists today, a small, well-organized minority can influence the selection
of (political) candidates to an astonishing degree.” Two years later he wrote in The
New World Order, “The Christian Coalition is launching an effort in selected states
to become acquainted with registered voters in every precinct. This is slow, hard
work. But it will build a significant database to use to communicate with those people
who are regular voters. When they are mobilized in support of vital issues, elected
officials listen.”

Its a very big pdf unfortunately

Obviously it follows logically that if having more guns in society makes the society less safe then giving the police more guns makes it less safe.

That thought would never cross the mind of an RWA (or LWA) because their brains are just not wired that way.
They have this massive blindspot when it comes to govt because that is the source of all their emotion and rage about 'problems' in the first place, relayed by the media of course

Bernays and many others since have fine tuned all this stuff ofc.

Guns held by police are better regulated and police officers are better trained. So you can argue that this simple view of it is flawed.

Guns held by police are better regulated and police officers are better trained. So you can argue that this simple view of it is flawed.

i-baster wrote: I thought it was impossible to give a view on this subject because it "involves an outcome in an imagined future"?

i-baster wrote:
Then the people should also be similarly trained as they are in Switzerland.

I'm not sure they train people to taser kids and blind pensioners and beat the shit out of protesters though.

You did not ask my view you asked me which would be safer more less or same.

You then suggest more citizens with guns is safer

Obviously offensive weapons don't make us 'safer', whether you're talking about guns, knives or nuclear weapons. This is self-evident. However, as we know for a fact that all of these things exist, and will continue to exist indefinitely, there's no sense in hankering for a world that will never, and can never, exist.

At no point did I suggest police should have guns and citizens shouldn't but it appears that is how I am painted.

If you ask my views I already gave plenty of them and yet you still want to make out that I am avoiding your question because you want a black and white answer to a grey question.

I have answered your question and yet you continue to persist as if I didn't. Should I ask for this topic to be closed now?

i-baster wrote: Entirely up to you. If you can indicate where you've answered these questions directly:

Would society be ‘safer’ if there were:

a) more guns than at present;
b) less guns than at present;
c) or the same number of guns as there are currently?

Would we be ‘safer’ if the police had:

a) more guns than they do now;
b) less guns than they do now;
c) or the same number of guns as they do now?

I'll happily read the answer. However, I know for a fact that you haven't and pretending that you have is rather stupid.