quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

But, Anti-Police and Anti-Guns as well. So don't trust the police to protect you. Don't trust yourself with guns to protect yourself.

What is the solution to regulate crime?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

Yeah, but you missed out an important part.

Bama said: "if you're anti-police and anti-gun (protection by and for yourself), you must be pro-crime.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

Yeah, but you missed out an important part.

Bama said: "if you're anti-police and anti-gun (protection by and for yourself), you must be pro-crime.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment.

I don't.

I am not a fan of needing a police force, they are a necessary evil because some asshats can't be bothered to obey the laws of the land.
So... not exactly 'anti' police but I'm certainly not 'pro' police by the same token.
I am, however, anti-gun.
I don't see guns as something needed for protection unless you happen to live in a gun-crazy society; which I don't.

And strangely enough, most of our police force (with some very notable exceptions), are actually protecting their citzens and not just as an after-the-fact investigators.
Police forces in the EU/Oz etc are quite pro-active for many things, including protection from crime - not something I can say for the US which is where your perspective comes from.
So I disagree with your premise that they were never designed for anything more than an after the fact agency. The problem with the US police is much like the US healthcare excuse for a system: it is underfunded by a huge margin and profiteering is rife.

I half agree with your comment when it comes to the US police force but it doesn't hold true for other parts of the world.

ETA: So essentially, I can be anti-police AND anti-gun and still not be 'pro-crime'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

Yeah, but you missed out an important part.

Bama said: "if you're anti-police and anti-gun (protection by and for yourself), you must be pro-crime.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment.

I don't.

I am not a fan of needing a police force, they are a necessary evil because some asshats can't be bothered to obey the laws of the land.
So... not exactly 'anti' police but I'm certainly not 'pro' police by the same token.
I am, however, anti-gun.
I don't see guns as something needed for protection unless you happen to live in a gun-crazy society; which I don't.

And strangely enough, most of our police force (with some very notable exceptions), are actually protecting their citzens and not just as an after-the-fact investigators.
Police forces in the EU/Oz etc are quite pro-active for many things, including protection from crime - not something I can say for the US which is where your perspective comes from.
So I disagree with your premise that they were never designed for anything more than an after the fact agency. The problem with the US police is much like the US healthcare excuse for a system: it is underfunded by a huge margin and profiteering is rife.

I half agree with your comment when it comes to the US police force but it doesn't hold true for other parts of the world.

ETA: So essentially, I can be anti-police AND anti-gun and still not be 'pro-crime'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

And it wasn't a targetted thread, it was general: "Do you trust the police?".

And I'm sure there are places/areas of the US where crime isn't so rife that you need a gun to replace the police protection.

So yes, you can still be anti-police and anti-gun and not be 'pro-crime' as a default.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

If you only look at half of any equation you can pretend to refute it.

PS If the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy you get them to take eachother out and keep you hands clean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

And it wasn't a targetted thread, it was general: "Do you trust the police?".

And I'm sure there are places/areas of the US where crime isn't so rife that you need a gun to replace the police protection.

So yes, you can still be anti-police and anti-gun and not be 'pro-crime' as a default.

If you get rid of both any area will become crime ridden.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You suffer from the age-old misnomer that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome.
The truth is, an enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy too; it doesn't make them my friend by default.

You can still be anti-police an not be 'pro-crime' as a result.

If you only look at half of any equation you can pretend to refute it.

PS If the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy you get them to take eachother out and keep you hands clean.

Not ncessarilly Bama.

It wasn't half an equation, it was a wrongful default conclusion.
To use your final sentence, I can be the enemy of all of them but not be involved in any conflict.
Your initial quote is the sort of mis-guided thinking that many absolutists get wrong.

Just like your posit: "How can you be both anti gun and anyi police unless you are pro crime"; the premise is just plain wrong because you can be anti-both but that doesn't automatically make you pro-crime as a result unless you have blinkered thinking.... you can also be anti-crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
Some people here simply are either not being honest or not thinking things through.
How can you be both anti gun and anyi police unless you are pro crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And yet you willingly put yourself at the mercy of criminals.
That makes you an enabler for criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I'll take a page out of your book, here ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And yet you willingly put yourself at the mercy of criminals.
That makes you an enabler for criminals.

Nope.
I happen to live where there are very few criminals on our streets.
So I am not 'at the mercy' of them, as you put it.

...

I don't have your cynical view that those who are not my friends are criminals, robbers or otherwise have a malevalent axe to grind with society and everyone around them.
My society is virtually gun-less (compared to the US).

So no, I am NOT an enabler for criminals and I'm NOT 'at their mercy' either.

Haven't you written, in the past about some of your Muslim neighbours whom you don't believe to be all that "moderate"? Unless I'm mistaken, you have.

To me, all that means is that you haven't been at an armed scumbag's mercy ... yet. I don't wish it on you (or anyone), but if it does happen, you'll be kicking yourself for not having the means to defend yourself.

If you haven't been one to claim that there aren't many "moderate" Muslims, then I apologize for my mistaken memory.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I have indeed said that, Michael.... and quite recently too.
And not just 'some' of the Muslims - most of them.
Many Muslims around me have said that they obey Sharia law and not those of our land.
And perhaps you have noticed, most of us over here do not have (and do not want) firearms of any sort.
So the chances of any one of us running into an 'armed' piece of scum is next to zero.
ETA: If we did have guns and I shot the scum, I'd be up on an attempted murder charge (if they lived to tell the tale) and that would probably get me incarcerated for a good few years. We don't have such liberal SYG laws here - if I shoot someone, self-defense is not a justification here.


And no doubt Bama will come up with his usual piece of shit like he usually does.... just wondering how long it'll take him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

There are a lot of high profile cases of abuse and there are a HELL of a lot of guys and gals who don't make the news which means they are doing their job as expected.

So, if you meet a policeperson, do you trust them more, less or the same as someone else that you just met. I chose "the same" as there are scumbags, awesome human beings and just regular folks in the middle both in and out of uniform.