5 ms·

It's not a Puritan mentality. It's the fact that any person they interact with could be armed. The reason many other countries police deal with violent criminal

It's not a Puritan mentality. It's the fact that any person they interact with could be armed. The reason many other countries police deal with violent criminals in a different way is because it is very unlikely those criminals will be armed. Where I live (Hungary) there is almost no gun violence. The few instances I'm aware of that do involve guns are things where violent groups are involved like organized crime or right-wing groups. In those cases I think that the police go in prepared for something different when they interact with people on a day to day basis. When I moved here from the US it was a big adjustment. I would hear a loud bang and think someone had fired off a gun. Now I hear the same noise and realize it is fireworks or construction. When I'm out in the city I no longer have to worry about an armed confrontation and that's relaxing. In fact I didn't realize how much those things weighed on me in the US until I got away from it. The proliferation of guns is the reason so many people get shot in the US and it's no surprise the police are a big part of it.

ci5er 9y ago
1) Where did you live in the US? I'm in a medium-ish sized metroplex (whatever that means) of about a million people, and I never hear live fire. 2) Why would you worry about a (remote) gun-shot that you heard? By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry?
- yorwba 9y ago
  > By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry? If you're not shot now, you could still be shot later. So trying to assess the situation to find out whether more shots will be fired seems like a good idea.
- stoolpigeon 9y ago
  I have lived in a number of places - Phoenix, AZ, Chicago, IL, Orlando, FL are probably the spots I spent the most time. When I lived in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, the city installed a system that could track gunfire and pinpoint the location for police. I can say I've heard gunfire in every city I've mentioned and called it in to police in those places more than once. I don't even know where to begin with 2. I was fishing with a friend on the Verde river in AZ. We were just below the Horseshoe dam. We were fishing for catfish at night. Someone a little further down river (couldn't see them through the bushes and such) started firing off guns. We immediately packed up and left. They were probably partying and shooting up into the air. The idea that if you hear gunfire you should just ignore it unless you've been hit - well I have to believe you are just trolling.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    No - not trolling. Probably just naive. I've been near the edge of war-zones. Once or twice, in them. But apparently I've missed out on the urban American experience.
- megaman22 9y ago
  It'd be ridiculous to call in every gunshot I heard... 1.) November just ended, and so deer hunting season. There's still black powder season ongoing, plus rabbit, coyote, and game bird seasons. 2.) There's a rifle range two miles away. Then there's a Sig Sauer training facility to the other side. It's pretty common to hear automatic weapons fire.
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
The proliferation of guns isn't everything. Finland has one of the highest number of guns per capita[1], yet their crime rates are one of the lowest. There is a massive correlation between (gun) crime and poverty. Regional inequality means that those who live in poverty have a pretty poor chance of improving their lives. To me, the problem stems less from guns and more from a poor quality of life for massive numbers of people in America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
- scotty79 9y ago
  But if you compare communities equal in poverty then amount of gun violence correlates with amount of guns. So either give poor communities heaps of money or take away guns. Or just wait till they shoot themselves, which is current US approach to the problem.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    I don't understand your logic. You acknowledge that low quality of life is a huge part of what pushes people to commit crime, yet you'd rather take away their weapons instead of doing something about poverty? We have 101 guns per 100 Residents[1]. Do you really think removing guns is a viable option at this point? What makes you think this wouldn't be met with violent resistance from people who want to defend their constitutional rights? Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Why not make people's lives better instead? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
    - scotty79 9y ago
      > you'd rather take away their weapons instead of do something about poverty? I'm just pointing out it's cheaper solution to resolving gun violence. > Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Mostly knifes I guess. But it's harder to kill a person accidentally with a knife then it is with a gun. Almost all gun death are accidental. Killer just wanted the victim to stop doing something or to punish him/her for some percieved transgression and it wasn't supposed to be capital punishment.
vidarh 9y ago
Even armed criminals are not approached this way most places in Europe. The policy in the UK is to get civilians away, contain the threat, call for reinforcements, and if possible wait and/or try to negotiate. If it quite rare for it to become necessary to shoot. You don't engage someone armed unless it is to avoid immediate and acute danger to anyone. The proliferation of guns make it harder to respond like that, but still a lot of the cases we see with gunfights involving the police in the US is cases where individuals or pairs of officers go after suspects alone without waiting for backup and without trying to contain and de-escalate.
- stoolpigeon 9y ago
  I think the ability to take an approach that time and resource intensive is made possible by the fact it happens so seldom.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    I don't think that makes sense, because resorting to violence so often ends up escalating conflicts to ridiculous levels. De-escalating these conflicts costs more resources in the initial response, but tends to make most conflict end quickly. Importantly it also gives criminals a very strong reason to avoid being pulling weapons at police - they can be confident police will not arm themselves first, and will not escalate a situation unnecessarily.

ci5er 9y ago

1) Where did you live in the US? I'm in a medium-ish sized metroplex (whatever that means) of about a million people, and I never hear live fire. 2) Why would you worry about a (remote) gun-shot that you heard? By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry?

yorwba 9y ago
> By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry? If you're not shot now, you could still be shot later. So trying to assess the situation to find out whether more shots will be fired seems like a good idea.
stoolpigeon 9y ago
I have lived in a number of places - Phoenix, AZ, Chicago, IL, Orlando, FL are probably the spots I spent the most time. When I lived in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, the city installed a system that could track gunfire and pinpoint the location for police. I can say I've heard gunfire in every city I've mentioned and called it in to police in those places more than once. I don't even know where to begin with 2. I was fishing with a friend on the Verde river in AZ. We were just below the Horseshoe dam. We were fishing for catfish at night. Someone a little further down river (couldn't see them through the bushes and such) started firing off guns. We immediately packed up and left. They were probably partying and shooting up into the air. The idea that if you hear gunfire you should just ignore it unless you've been hit - well I have to believe you are just trolling.
- ci5er 9y ago
  No - not trolling. Probably just naive. I've been near the edge of war-zones. Once or twice, in them. But apparently I've missed out on the urban American experience.
megaman22 9y ago
It'd be ridiculous to call in every gunshot I heard... 1.) November just ended, and so deer hunting season. There's still black powder season ongoing, plus rabbit, coyote, and game bird seasons. 2.) There's a rifle range two miles away. Then there's a Sig Sauer training facility to the other side. It's pretty common to hear automatic weapons fire.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

The proliferation of guns isn't everything. Finland has one of the highest number of guns per capita[1], yet their crime rates are one of the lowest. There is a massive correlation between (gun) crime and poverty. Regional inequality means that those who live in poverty have a pretty poor chance of improving their lives. To me, the problem stems less from guns and more from a poor quality of life for massive numbers of people in America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...

scotty79 9y ago
But if you compare communities equal in poverty then amount of gun violence correlates with amount of guns. So either give poor communities heaps of money or take away guns. Or just wait till they shoot themselves, which is current US approach to the problem.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I don't understand your logic. You acknowledge that low quality of life is a huge part of what pushes people to commit crime, yet you'd rather take away their weapons instead of doing something about poverty? We have 101 guns per 100 Residents[1]. Do you really think removing guns is a viable option at this point? What makes you think this wouldn't be met with violent resistance from people who want to defend their constitutional rights? Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Why not make people's lives better instead? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
  - scotty79 9y ago
    > you'd rather take away their weapons instead of do something about poverty? I'm just pointing out it's cheaper solution to resolving gun violence. > Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Mostly knifes I guess. But it's harder to kill a person accidentally with a knife then it is with a gun. Almost all gun death are accidental. Killer just wanted the victim to stop doing something or to punish him/her for some percieved transgression and it wasn't supposed to be capital punishment.

vidarh 9y ago

Even armed criminals are not approached this way most places in Europe. The policy in the UK is to get civilians away, contain the threat, call for reinforcements, and if possible wait and/or try to negotiate. If it quite rare for it to become necessary to shoot. You don't engage someone armed unless it is to avoid immediate and acute danger to anyone. The proliferation of guns make it harder to respond like that, but still a lot of the cases we see with gunfights involving the police in the US is cases where individuals or pairs of officers go after suspects alone without waiting for backup and without trying to contain and de-escalate.

stoolpigeon 9y ago
I think the ability to take an approach that time and resource intensive is made possible by the fact it happens so seldom.
- vidarh 9y ago
  I don't think that makes sense, because resorting to violence so often ends up escalating conflicts to ridiculous levels. De-escalating these conflicts costs more resources in the initial response, but tends to make most conflict end quickly. Importantly it also gives criminals a very strong reason to avoid being pulling weapons at police - they can be confident police will not arm themselves first, and will not escalate a situation unnecessarily.