Do police need to be heavily armed? Here’s what nobody else will tell you – the truth you haven’t heard

Save now read later. Download this article as a PDF

Modern day police look like Stormtroopers – rifles, armour, super-ninja-cool thigh holsters. They look like they just walked off a patrol in Aleppo. There’s this debate between “cops should look like the army” and “cops should look like community service kumbaya singers”. This article explains why police really do need to be a standing army – and also why it’s totally unnecessary.


The thing is they need all that stuff. Active shooters, guys ploughing through crowds, rioters setting cars on fire.


This is as good an account of why police need to be heavily armed these days as I’ve read.


My problem is that I’ve always felt a hesitation about police (or any other armed group with the authority to force other people’s opinions on me) having more guns than me. Call it too many stories from Nazi days. Or Stalin days. Or Mao days. Or Mugabe days. Or Escobar days. Or Pol Pot days. Or many, many other examples. So you could say that my fears are certainly grounded in history.


But based on today’s climate of violence, I understand the need for heavily armed people.


Go to any rural, farming, livestock area and all the farmers have rifles. It’s a fact of life for farmers. They have livestock to protect and there are predators to be put down when they threaten.


So why do farmer’s need guns? Because the sheep refuse to grow some fucking teeth.


That’s it. The sheep can’t/don’t protect themselves or each other.


Why do police need guns? Let’s read the 3rd sentence of the article I linked to above:


“The public expects law enforcement to intercede in armed conflicts and stop the threat.”


Expects. There’s the punchline right there. “Expect” = “Entitlement”. You don’t expect someone to put food in your month because you’re starving to death – and then forget to tell them it’s because you didn’t feel like feeding yourself.


Your safety is your responsibility.


Any job you contract out to someone else puts you at their mercy. At their competence and desire to do the job. If you want guaranteed safety then don’t depend on other people.


If you don’t want armed farmers, then don’t be a cow who does nothing but graze grass all day. And make no mistake – you are a cow being farmed.


So to all the special little snowflakes who don’t think we need heavily armed police – you’re right, we don’t (I don’t. People I spend time with don’t) but you better either man up and take control of your own life and safety, or quit whining that you gave up your responsibility but don’t like how it’s being handled. I know, go and vote, I’m sure that’ll make everything feel better.

1 Comment

  1. I think Lind’s ideas, taken to their natural conclusions, are very similar to how the Swiss do things, and how Gabe Suarez explains things – Every man a counter terrorist. I’ve written about that before:

    Basic decentralisation, just taken to its logical conclusion.

    Criminals and terrorists different?

    You see a man with a weapon trying to kill you – you don’t stop to work out his motivations.

    Criminals are more likely to be talked down, but besides that I don’t see much difference betwene terrorists and “ordinary” criminals as far as I’m concerned. Their motivations and socially “curing” them is different (and always a good idea), but by the time the SHTF there are more pressing matters (pardon any shooting puns).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.