Should police be given guns that fire rubber bullets?
Yes
Side Score: 24
|
 |
No
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
If it were up to me, I would advise that police be issued firearms capable of being loaded with either lethal or non-lethal ammunition of some kind. The magazine kept in the holstered firearm would, under almost all circumstances, contain non-lethal ammunition. However, all officers would also have a magazine or two loaded with lethal ammunition should they need it. I think it's foolish to strip our officers of the ability to project lethal force given many factors at play in the US. Changing a magazine is a pretty quick action, but still a very deliberate one, requiring conscious thought regarding using lethal force. Side: Yes
1
point
No, I don't. If their only options were rubber bullets or real ones, sure- they'd be more likely to open fire than if they only had lethal rounds. But remember that this isn't the case; police already have a broad range of options ranging from almost completely harmless to lethal. Consider the taser, for a moment. This is a favorite of the police these days for a number of reasons, and is generally non-lethal. When a taser doesn't cut it, currently police tend to call for backup and switch to live rounds. But lethality is far from the only reason a taser might not cut it! Accuracy, range, velocity, rate of fire (and by extension the ability to engage multiple targets) are severely limited on a taser. Rubber bullets are more dangerous than tasers, though still not nearly as dangerous as live rounds. They are also more accurate, longer ranged, travel more quickly, and can be fired in succession much more rapidly than a taser can. The limitations on tasers mean that they are often ineffective, and rubber bullets overcome most of those limitations while still being relatively non-lethal. Side: Yes
I'm not taking sides in this comment, just crediting my idea for this debate: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ Side: Yes
1
point
I had to pick one side to post it on, because (unfortunately) it's impossible to hyperlink in the description, and the post itself is an affirmative argument that imo should be credited. In reference to my neutrality, my comment itself was supposed to be neutral (perhaps earlier I articulated that inadequetely), as there is no such thing as an individual not being "biased", which is what I assume that you meant by neutrality. The best that we can do is be forthfront admit our biases. Side: Yes
Horses for courses If their weapons are needed when crowd control goes pear shaped and some people are seriously misbehaving then maybe rubber bullets would be appropriate. If their weapons are needed in a crazy gun fight with some people with AK47's then whatever they need should be available Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Rubber bullets still have the possibility to cause death but i feel it should be enforced that police authorities only be allowed to carry these especially with the missuses of power and how much i feel cops are power hungry assholes that when given a gun feel they must use it. Side: Yes
|
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
I agree with part of your point. We've got Liberal judges who have been over ruling entire states, saying that the Constitution, written in a time when Homosexuality was not supported, actually supports Gay marriage. Insanity! That's kind of like when they said the privacy clause in the Constitution supports the right to abortion. Liberals are the most devious inhuman excuses for Americans this nation has ever seen. There is no part of the Constitution they will not twist to get their agendas passed. This is why Democrats always appoint Liberal Justices to the Supreme court who legislate rather than interpret the Constitution. Side: Yes
This is why Democrats always appoint Liberal Justices to the Supreme court who legislate rather than interpret the Constitution. Courts legislate. You live in a country with a common law system. Every court case in a higher court is 'legislation'. Again, you show your ignorance about your own country. It is quite embarrassing. Side: No
1
point
So since the Constitution was written at a time here african americans weren't people, that means it doesn't apply to them, right? That is the logic you employed. And as I have told you many times, Conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents are supporting same-sex marriage. Side: No
Rubber bullets may seem the case when dealing with a gang of shoplifters or pickpockets. however, if police had tried to deal with Al Capone with rubber bullets, what would have happened? Rubber bullets is a good idea when dealing with small cases, but when trying to deal with maniacs with guns with real bullets, this may result to failure in operation and many casualties. Side: No
No, not as standard issue. Rubber bullets are inaccurate and can, as plastic bullets have done in Northern Ireland, cause death. If the situation involves armed and dangerous criminals and/or terrorists then the deployment of firearms is what is required. However, in such circumstances as violent civil disturbances, Tasers, and in extreme cases, say where violent mobs are using petrol bombs, then baton rounds could justifiably be used. Side: No
If this question is meant to only issue rubber bullet firing weapons, then no. If that's not what is meant, cops already have weapons that fire rubber and bean bag rounds used to stun the enemy. Rubber bullets and bean bags are used in specific situations like riots and crowd control, any other situation the cop will A) use their stun gun, or B) use lethal rounds if the enemy is showing deadly force. So this argument is kind of pointless.......... Side: No
1
point
I highly agree! The procedures and policies of police forces have never been called into question more than quite recently. Police forces already use rubber ammunition as part of, as you said, riots and such. But, again, debating whether or not to allow the police to use lethal ammunition is as pointless as debating gun control. Honestly, it as not about lethal or nonlethal ammo. Its about guns. And that's where politics begin. Side: No
Less than lethal ammunition is not non-lethal. It still has the ability to inflict serious bodily injury and even death. Police officers have a dangerous job. Even with all of the police shootings, the majority of the shootings are justified. The media just blows up the small percentage of unjustified shootings. We give law enforcement the power to do their jobs to do their best at keeping our neighborhoods safe. They are already out gunned by criminals who have illegal firearms that far exceed the capabilites of those that we arm our law enforcement with. How is downgrading their ammunition to rubber bullets going to help them keep themselves and others alive? Law enforcment officials have to use their best judgement, using their training and knowledge, in accordance with their use of force policy, to make a spit second decision in a potentially life threatening situation. So why would we add to their stress and the danger of their jobs by giving them rubber bullets? Shall we just issue them and all the criminals paint ball guns to play with? This would be like taking a mechanics tools away and leaving him with a crescent wrench and a rubber hammer. Side: No
|
