JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
This is a summation of one of the arguments dealing with this topic that I've seen on the more left-leaning sites I sometimes visit:

1. Nations with police who are not armed with firearms experience less police related shootings.
2. Police in the US need to be armed with firearms due, in large part, to the rate of gun ownership and availability among the citizenry.
3. Stricter gun control (or even straight-out banning firearms) would decrease the need for firearm equipped police forces.
4. Thus, gun control would lead to less police shootings.

To be clear, this is not my argument, but just one of the common arguments I've seen on this topic. I just thought I'd post it here to add to the thread and let people discuss.

(I also may shamelessly use some of your counterpoints when I debate on these other sites :p)
I too have heard/read those very same arguments.
I decided that they are not persuasive in the slightest.
Also that I don't care and I remain unconvinced and solidly opposed to ALL gun control laws... doesn't matter how many buildings they burn dow.
I was only able to get halfway through that Washington Post article before I got cringe-sick.

Obviously the reputable "Jeff Bezos Times" is fluffing the public for the coming election. Gotta get folks excited for another round of Gun-Banning. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors May 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top