3 ms·

> What I always find strange is the obsession with "officer safety". Being a cop isn't even one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the country, statistically

by lolsal 9y ago

> What I always find strange is the obsession with "officer safety". Being a cop isn't even one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the country, statistically speaking. It's far more dangerous to be in logging, farming, construction, fishing, transportation, etc. I don't think it has to do with the numbers exactly. If you are a skilled logger and don't make any mistakes, you are likely pretty safe. As a skilled cop, without any mistakes, your life can still be in jeopardy at the drop of a hat. No amount of safety gear can protect a cop from someone pulling a knife or other weapon with intent to harm either the cop or an innocent civilian. I think there is also the aspect that cops are public servants. It's compassion that makes me want to keep these folks alive who are voluntarily taking risks to protect me and my community. I think the numbers are also not totally representative - are all 'cops' lumped in together for the statistic about job safety? Does that include detectives doing mostly office or investigative work? Does it include officers writing parking tickets? Does it blend cops patrolling the suburbs with cops patrolling inner cities? I don't have any sources about my claims here, I don't really know a lot about the dangers of logging or the statistics about the dangers of being a cop. --- What bothers me the most about this is that visual presence of a firearm is immediately associated with criminal behavior or intent.

turc1656 9y ago
That's a good point about the risk not being in control of the officer through something like skill. Though, I don't think that changes the essence of my point, which could be summed up as diminishing returns. If we had a much higher rate of officer fatalities, then I would say pursuing this technology makes sense. But I think the resources can be allocated better elsewhere. Totally agree that the mere presence of a gun being an alarm bell of sorts is the biggest issue here.
- eridius 9y ago
  I disagree, I think the presence of a gun is definitely cause for alarm. The only reason anyone should be carrying a gun that is visible to others is if they intend to use it. If you want to carry one regularly (as opposed to only when you're going to use it), get a concealed carry permit, and keep it concealed.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    I strongly disagree that having a weapon on display is only done if there is intent to use it. In some areas of the south, open carry is quite common. It should also be noted that getting a concealed carry permit is not always that easy, depending on where you live. The reason I have no issue with open carry is that it 1) makes the weapon more quickly accessible should it be needed and 2) it acts as a deterrent. I think having a gun visible to any possible violent criminals would make them far less likely to choose that individual than one who may or may not be concealing it in their pant leg, purse, backpack, etc. In fact, those two reasons are exactly why cops open carry when on duty. They need to have quick access just in case shit goes down and it makes people think twice (and then a third and fourth time) if they see an armed officer - how likely is it that someone is going to try to assault a cop and escape arrest if they could be shot in ~1 second? Police by nature cannot be everywhere at all times. Even in dense cities it is not realistic to expect an officer to be able to respond within 30 seconds - a length of time that means the world when it comes to violent crime, whether it involves a gun or not. The further out you go from the dense cities the longer the response time, making it even more critical to have protection for yourself. This is the entire reason why the second amendment exists - to be able to protect yourself when the government cannot enforce and defend your rights for you.
    - eridius 9y ago
      > it acts as a deterrent I'm pretty sure this has been thoroughly debunked. The only thing that carrying a weapon does is make it more likely that someone will die if an incident occurs. Not only because now there's a gun involved, but also because if the criminal's victims are armed with guns, then the criminal is going to be armed with a gun too. > In fact, those two reasons are exactly why cops open carry when on duty. What cops do and don't do is pretty much irrelevant to talking about the general public. They actually have the legal authority to do things like shoot people, or just to arrest them in general, meaning the presence of a cop (armed or otherwise) acts as a deterrent to crime already. > This is the entire reason why the second amendment exists - to be able to protect yourself when the government cannot enforce and defend your rights for you. No, the second amendment exists because it dates to when militias were common (in fact it explicitly mentions militias). I believe it was also meant as an escape hatch to allow another revolution if the US government got out of hand (which comes back to the whole militia thing). It was not intended as a deterrent for ordinary crime.

by lolsal 9y ago

turc1656 9y ago

That's a good point about the risk not being in control of the officer through something like skill. Though, I don't think that changes the essence of my point, which could be summed up as diminishing returns. If we had a much higher rate of officer fatalities, then I would say pursuing this technology makes sense. But I think the resources can be allocated better elsewhere. Totally agree that the mere presence of a gun being an alarm bell of sorts is the biggest issue here.

eridius 9y ago
I disagree, I think the presence of a gun is definitely cause for alarm. The only reason anyone should be carrying a gun that is visible to others is if they intend to use it. If you want to carry one regularly (as opposed to only when you're going to use it), get a concealed carry permit, and keep it concealed.
- turc1656 9y ago
  I strongly disagree that having a weapon on display is only done if there is intent to use it. In some areas of the south, open carry is quite common. It should also be noted that getting a concealed carry permit is not always that easy, depending on where you live. The reason I have no issue with open carry is that it 1) makes the weapon more quickly accessible should it be needed and 2) it acts as a deterrent. I think having a gun visible to any possible violent criminals would make them far less likely to choose that individual than one who may or may not be concealing it in their pant leg, purse, backpack, etc. In fact, those two reasons are exactly why cops open carry when on duty. They need to have quick access just in case shit goes down and it makes people think twice (and then a third and fourth time) if they see an armed officer - how likely is it that someone is going to try to assault a cop and escape arrest if they could be shot in ~1 second? Police by nature cannot be everywhere at all times. Even in dense cities it is not realistic to expect an officer to be able to respond within 30 seconds - a length of time that means the world when it comes to violent crime, whether it involves a gun or not. The further out you go from the dense cities the longer the response time, making it even more critical to have protection for yourself. This is the entire reason why the second amendment exists - to be able to protect yourself when the government cannot enforce and defend your rights for you.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > it acts as a deterrent I'm pretty sure this has been thoroughly debunked. The only thing that carrying a weapon does is make it more likely that someone will die if an incident occurs. Not only because now there's a gun involved, but also because if the criminal's victims are armed with guns, then the criminal is going to be armed with a gun too. > In fact, those two reasons are exactly why cops open carry when on duty. What cops do and don't do is pretty much irrelevant to talking about the general public. They actually have the legal authority to do things like shoot people, or just to arrest them in general, meaning the presence of a cop (armed or otherwise) acts as a deterrent to crime already. > This is the entire reason why the second amendment exists - to be able to protect yourself when the government cannot enforce and defend your rights for you. No, the second amendment exists because it dates to when militias were common (in fact it explicitly mentions militias). I believe it was also meant as an escape hatch to allow another revolution if the US government got out of hand (which comes back to the whole militia thing). It was not intended as a deterrent for ordinary crime.