Gun Control vs. Trust in Police

[Spartacus]

Opposition to stricter gun regulations is generally associated with conservatism. So is support for police.

Support for stricter gun regulations is similarly correlated with the Left, which of late has cultivated a certain distrust of police.

Are these each contradictory positions? They certainly don't correlate the way one might expect at first.

Why are the people who suspect the government of trying to take their guns, or think their own guns are a bulwark against possible tyranny also the people who support the military and police most enthusiastically?

Why are the people who think that police are the only people who should be trusted with guns also the people who seem to distrust the police?

These aren't originally my thoughts; I saw them once before through Facebook, then was recently reminded of them again and figured someone here might be able to give a satisfactory resolution to these seeming contradictions.

[eider]

Opposition to stricter gun regulations is generally associated with conservatism. So is support for police.

Support for stricter gun regulations is similarly correlated with the Left, which of late has cultivated a certain distrust of police.

Are these each contradictory positions? They certainly don't correlate the way one might expect at first.

Why are the people who suspect the government of trying to take their guns, or think their own guns are a bulwark against possible tyranny also the people who support the military and police most enthusiastically?

Why are the people who think that police are the only people who should be trusted with guns also the people who seem to distrust the police?

These aren't originally my thoughts; I saw them once before through Facebook, then was recently reminded of them again and figured someone here might be able to give a satisfactory resolution to these seeming contradictions.

Hi...!
I feel sure that many Republicans do think that registration and licensing is a good idea. Equally I think that there will be Democrats who want gun licensing to be minimal.

Each question needs to be separated and voted upon in its own right.
This 'clubbing' together of attitudes and then stapling all to millions of people just can't be accurate?

A member who I think is (roughly) Religious, Right Wing, Conservative, Pro Gun Rights told me yesterday that he (roughly) needs his assault rifle in case three intruders all try to get into his home together, and incase he needs to shoot American men and women who might be ordered to take control of his life and home in some way. We could hardly staple that lot to every conservative person in the States.

[seanD]

Hi...!
I feel sure that many Republicans do think that registration and licensing is a good idea. Equally I think that there will be Democrats who want gun licensing to be minimal.

Each question needs to be separated and voted upon in its own right.
This 'clubbing' together of attitudes and then stapling all to millions of people just can't be accurate?

A member who I think is (roughly) Religious, Right Wing, Conservative, Pro Gun Rights told me yesterday that he (roughly) needs his assault rifle in case three intruders all try to get into his home together, and incase he needs to shoot American men and women who might be ordered to take control of his life and home in some way. We could hardly staple that lot to every conservative person in the States.

Generally speaking though it's true. They're questions I've often wondered myself. Especially the Republican side. They seem to abhor big government, but strangely embrace the police state when it has to do with military or police or counter terrorism agencies.

[Starlight]

Opposition to stricter gun regulations is generally associated with conservatism.

In America, yes. I don't observe this correlation in other countries.

In Australia, it was the conservative government who enacted sweeping and strict gun control laws in 1996 after the massacre there. In my country, pretty much all parties just agree to follow international best-practices for gun laws, and will implement whatever the OECD/UN/whoever tells them that their research shows works best (ie reasonably strict gun control laws). I would say in most countries gun-control is just a "sanity issue" - you either follow what research suggests is the best practice, or you are crazy and don't.

So is support [conservative support] for police. ...the Left, which of late has cultivated a certain distrust of police.

Yup. That's a normal pattern found in other countries.

This happens because conservatives, as conservatives, defend and support the existing hierarchy and social structures within their society and emphasize all the goods that they see resulting from these social structures. Liberals, as liberals, emphasize all the evils that they see resulting from these social structures, and are suspicious of the ways enforced hierarchies and authorities can misuse their power and cause suffering.

Why are the people who suspect the government of trying to take their guns, or think their own guns are a bulwark against possible tyranny also the people who support the military and police most enthusiastically?

A valid point on your part. In other countries conservatives, as conservatives, tend to like the authority of the government - the hierarchy and establishment and the law and order it enforces appeals to them. The deep-seated fear of their own government that I see present in the US among conservatives has no parallels I can think of among conservatives in other countries. It's really strange.

Why are the people who think that police are the only people who should be trusted with guns also the people who seem to distrust the police?

In my country the police aren't armed. Even recent moves to give them tasers were hugely controversial. So, in short, nope we don't trust the police with guns - they only get to use guns if the offender is known to be armed and then a special and highly trained squad is called in to deal with it. And all police actions are subject to independent investigation in the event of complaints. So, yeah, as far as the laws go here, there's not much "trust" of the police... but in general I would say the public here does trust the police quite a lot (and part of that is because we know they won't shoot us on sight like in the US, because they literally can't because they're not armed).

[eider]

In my country the police aren't armed. Even recent moves to give them tasers were hugely controversial. So, in short, nope we don't trust the police with guns - they only get to use guns if the offender is known to be armed and then a special and highly trained squad is called in to deal with it. And all police actions are subject to independent investigation in the event of complaints. So, yeah, as far as the laws go here, there's not much "trust" of the police... but in general I would say the public here does trust the police quite a lot (and part of that is because we know they won't shoot us on sight like in the US, because they literally can't because they're not armed).

Same here, generally speaking, in the UK. But our Government buildings, airports and other sensitive areas are policed by officers who are equipped with automatic weapons. Recent terrorist attacks and attempted attacks have shown us thre need for more specially trained response teams on hand and ready to travel and react more quickly than before, though.

I have faced knives, lumps of timber, steel toe-caps, aggressively driven motors etc in my work over the years, but never had to face a gun, ever. That's the difference between gun controls in my country and, say, guns-awash in the USA.

[37818]

Local police are not legally bound to protect us.

[Sparko]

Generally it is not the military or police who are trying to take away our guns. It's the liberal legislators in Washington. Police and Military have no problem with legal gun ownership. They just want to keep them out of the hands of criminals. If more law abiding citizens carried guns a lot of those mass killings like at the Pulse would never happen. By the time the assassin pulled his gun and got off a shot, he would have been riddled with holes.

[Sea of red]

Generally speaking though it's true. They're questions I've often wondered myself. Especially the Republican side. They seem to abhor big government, but strangely embrace the police state when it has to do with military or police or counter terrorism agencies.

They are the true big government advocates when you look at the things they advocate.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm registered Republican, but my ideology is more Constitutional conservatarian. I can't be full-on Libertarian, because they are generally Pro-Choice and just a bit too anti-interventionist.

I believe the Bill of Rights should be taken very much at face value, meaning I think there are already *way* too many restrictions on weapon ownership and carrying.

I respect the police, and I have a good friend who is a detective in the police department. I definitely align much more with "Blue Lives Matter" than its odious racist predecessor. But I also do have concerns about police abuses of power, and I deplore mass data-collection in the guise of providing "safety."

I think my views are probably pretty common among libertarians and conservatarians.

[Carrikature]

The common theme is defense. Defense of self/home/family. Defense against criminals. Defense against foreign nations.

[37818]

Missed the point, if we are not allowed to have our own guns and local government is not legally bound to protect us, we then might not have any protection.

[One Bad Pig]

Generally speaking though it's true. They're questions I've often wondered myself. Especially the Republican side. They seem to abhor big government, but strangely embrace the police state when it has to do with military or police or counter terrorism agencies.

There's so much wrong here, I don't know where to start. Republicans aren't against "big government" per se, but federal government overstepping its constitutional bounds. The military, and counter-terrorism, fall squarely within the bounds of the constitution, so there is no contradiction here. "Police states" typically have police forces run at the federal level, whereas Republicans in the US support their local police.

[seanD]

There's so much wrong here, I don't know where to start. Republicans aren't against "big government" per se, but federal government overstepping its constitutional bounds. The military, and counter-terrorism, fall squarely within the bounds of the constitution, so there is no contradiction here. "Police states" typically have police forces run at the federal level, whereas Republicans in the US support their local police.

Some of what you claim Constitutional is highly debatable when it comes to specific details; gray areas at best, let alone how much I agree with your opinion based on what I've seen and heard Reps advocate for.

[KingsGambit]

I was once told by somebody who is heavily involved in the YEC movement in Australia that conservatives in Australia generally are not in support of gun rights. My theory is that guns are intricately intertwined with American national culture (even down to having one of the Bill of Rights) and the defense of firearms is seen through a patriotic/nationalistic lens.

[Spartacus]

The common theme is defense. Defense of self/home/family. Defense against criminals. Defense against foreign nations.

A compelling explanation. Is there a similar theme on the Left?