4 ms·

> All police in the US are, of course, armed. There is also the very real prospect that they could face criminals who are, too. While I doubt it is the sole is

> All police in the US are, of course, armed. There is also the very real prospect that they could face criminals who are, too. While I doubt it is the sole issue, I wonder how much of the United States' absurd frequency of police killings is due to its massively pro-firearm policies and sentiment. Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
> Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation? Yes. Start giving the officers and the organizations that represent the officers (departments, unions) good reasons to kick out people who are a high risk of shooting people unreasonably. Mandatory individual liability insurance would go a long ways. Holding police to the same standard as the rest of us would also go a long ways. Pretty much anything is better than nothing. Cops shoot people dead in situations where normal armed citizens wouldn't even think about pulling a gun. Seriously, I can't even begin to convey how massive the double standard is here. Stuff that's justifiable when the cops do it would be an instant manslaughter if not murder charge for a regular person. Unnecessary police killings are one of those areas where pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate and pull the trigger at the drop of the hat that are the problem.
- michaelt 8y ago
  pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate I don't think it's realistic for America to get rid of guns. But it seems to me a lot of American police practices that make de-escalating hard come from officer safety concerns, which come in part from the availability of weapons* Pointing your gun at someone from 20 feet away and not getting closer until they lie face down on the floor is probably great for officer safety - but not exactly conductive to non-shouted conversations or de-escalating. * Of course knives are also an issue, so a gun ban wouldn't eliminate the problem even if such a thing was possible.
- MrLeftHand 8y ago
  I think when the police's top priority is to get home to their families rather then protect and serve... That speaks volumes. The danger of being shot every time they get a call to a scene is very real. This creates the mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. Hot headed officers?! In a country where everybody can own a gun there is a real fear of getting shot. The only worse profession is to be in the army. Surprisingly other countries have armed police as well, but somehow they wont pull the trigger that often then the Americans. Wonder why... Oh wait, maybe because there is a minuscule chance of being shot by another person?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >The danger of being shot every time they get a call to a scene is very real. This creates the mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. >Hot headed officers?! In a country where everybody can own a gun there is a real fear of getting shot. The only worse profession is to be in the army. >Surprisingly other countries have armed police as well, but somehow they wont pull the trigger that often then the Americans. Wonder why... Oh wait, maybe because there is a minuscule chance of being shot by another person? Oh piss off. The danger of being shot is not nearly what the training videos and boot-lickers will have you believe. Cops don't even crack the top ten for dangerous jobs. As far as well paying blue collar jobs you can get with a highschool diploma goes it's one of the safer ones. Teenagers with light machine guns have no problem working under far more restrictive rules of engagement than the cops have. I think the cops can be reasonably expected to hold their fire until they see a gun or get charged by an armed individual. At the very least they have a responsibility to not unnecessarily escalate situations. This isn't a guns issue, it's an officers too eager to use force issue (as can be seen with how they use tasers and pepper spray).
    - MrLeftHand 8y ago
      Thanks, but why don't you piss of instead? Also by the time you see a gun, it's already too late. Have you thought about a second, maybe? If a person has the intention to shoot a police officer, he wont hesitate to do so. Maybe that's why they don't like to wait until they see a gun? Or do you think the raging person will ask politely first, if he can shoot at them or not? Maybe you should think about both sides in a situation? Maybe understand how a situation can escalate quickly into a shooting spree? And maybe that's the reason why officers don't risk it at all and rather shoot first? At the end of the day, they are people too. If you can't understand that then why don't you go and be a police officer and show us idiots how it's done.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

> Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation? Yes. Start giving the officers and the organizations that represent the officers (departments, unions) good reasons to kick out people who are a high risk of shooting people unreasonably. Mandatory individual liability insurance would go a long ways. Holding police to the same standard as the rest of us would also go a long ways. Pretty much anything is better than nothing. Cops shoot people dead in situations where normal armed citizens wouldn't even think about pulling a gun. Seriously, I can't even begin to convey how massive the double standard is here. Stuff that's justifiable when the cops do it would be an instant manslaughter if not murder charge for a regular person. Unnecessary police killings are one of those areas where pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate and pull the trigger at the drop of the hat that are the problem.

michaelt 8y ago
pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate I don't think it's realistic for America to get rid of guns. But it seems to me a lot of American police practices that make de-escalating hard come from officer safety concerns, which come in part from the availability of weapons* Pointing your gun at someone from 20 feet away and not getting closer until they lie face down on the floor is probably great for officer safety - but not exactly conductive to non-shouted conversations or de-escalating. * Of course knives are also an issue, so a gun ban wouldn't eliminate the problem even if such a thing was possible.
MrLeftHand 8y ago
I think when the police's top priority is to get home to their families rather then protect and serve... That speaks volumes. The danger of being shot every time they get a call to a scene is very real. This creates the mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. Hot headed officers?! In a country where everybody can own a gun there is a real fear of getting shot. The only worse profession is to be in the army. Surprisingly other countries have armed police as well, but somehow they wont pull the trigger that often then the Americans. Wonder why... Oh wait, maybe because there is a minuscule chance of being shot by another person?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >The danger of being shot every time they get a call to a scene is very real. This creates the mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. >Hot headed officers?! In a country where everybody can own a gun there is a real fear of getting shot. The only worse profession is to be in the army. >Surprisingly other countries have armed police as well, but somehow they wont pull the trigger that often then the Americans. Wonder why... Oh wait, maybe because there is a minuscule chance of being shot by another person? Oh piss off. The danger of being shot is not nearly what the training videos and boot-lickers will have you believe. Cops don't even crack the top ten for dangerous jobs. As far as well paying blue collar jobs you can get with a highschool diploma goes it's one of the safer ones. Teenagers with light machine guns have no problem working under far more restrictive rules of engagement than the cops have. I think the cops can be reasonably expected to hold their fire until they see a gun or get charged by an armed individual. At the very least they have a responsibility to not unnecessarily escalate situations. This isn't a guns issue, it's an officers too eager to use force issue (as can be seen with how they use tasers and pepper spray).
  - MrLeftHand 8y ago
    Thanks, but why don't you piss of instead? Also by the time you see a gun, it's already too late. Have you thought about a second, maybe? If a person has the intention to shoot a police officer, he wont hesitate to do so. Maybe that's why they don't like to wait until they see a gun? Or do you think the raging person will ask politely first, if he can shoot at them or not? Maybe you should think about both sides in a situation? Maybe understand how a situation can escalate quickly into a shooting spree? And maybe that's the reason why officers don't risk it at all and rather shoot first? At the end of the day, they are people too. If you can't understand that then why don't you go and be a police officer and show us idiots how it's done.