5 ms·

I get your point, but I have to disagree. The fact that the UK can have its officers not carry by default and armed officers only show up for the most extreme

I get your point, but I have to disagree. The fact that the UK can have its officers not carry by default and armed officers only show up for the most extreme situations is a testament to how they are conducting their operations. They had only five deaths in 2017 due to officer shootings. Four of those were terrorist attacks. So their response time is good enough to stop terrorists with lethal force while also not resulting in extra civilian deaths and still keep their beat cops gun-free.

dfsegoat 8y ago
You can't extrapolate that model to the USA, where there are more firearms than citizens [1]. This means that the average risk / threat an officer may encounter in otherwise routine situations are quite different than the UK, which has very strict firearms policies, since they decided to ban almost all firearms in 1988 / 1997. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there...
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  And even with all those firearms available to US citizens, only about 40 police officers are shot dead every year in the US. Being in law enforcement isn't as dangerous as the police unions would like you to think.
  - danielvf 8y ago
    I live in the South, and know two officers currently working on the street. In the last five years, between the two of them: someone tried to run the officer over with a truck in a dark alley, a man pointed a shotgun at the officer's head from a few feet away (while carrying three guns and 400 rounds of ammo, and having previously fired several rounds through a house wall), a fleeing criminal pulled to the side of the road and opened fire at the officer, and while responding to an officer who had been shot in the woods, were ambushed by the suspect, who killed the officer next to him, and sent my acquaintance to the hospital for a month. And I don't even live in a high crime area of country!
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      Hey, I've got anecdata, too! My previous institution is on the hook for half a million dollars after an officer-involved shooting. This was a civil settlement, without admission of liability, the usual kind. The officer was permitted to resign. He had racked up an unusual number of disciplinary issues already but was never disciplined for that incident, when he severely injured the student. The police captain was also permitted to resign, even though there were severe concerns about discipline in the force he was overseeing. There was never a criminal trial for either of the two, there rarely is, because of the unholy alliance between the district attorney and the cops. Probably both are working for other police forces nearby, they love officers with a disciplinary record, it shows a willingness to go along and bend the rules. But this is the important anecdote: https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Diabetic-man-has-episode-tased-by-police-502822791.html https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Diabetic-man-has-episode-t... A diabetic man became hypoglycemic and confused, he led the police on a car chase and was then manhandled by two officers after he crashed into a ditch. He would like changes in protocol and can only pussyfoot around the real issue, police brutality, because everyone agrees that he deserved a beating. Or something. As is usual, there is nothing to see here, district attorney sides with the cops. Whatever anecdotes one has, citizens are more at risk from the police than the other way round.
- turc1656 8y ago
  I'd agree that this means firearms in the UK are much harder to come by for criminals and that this results in a higher risk to officers in the US. However, this risk also applies to all citizens (and non-citizens) in the US as well. In fact since people are far less likely to use a weapon against an officer as opposed to a non-officer, the risk of mere existence as a non-officer in the US is greater. That being said, other 1st world nations with gun-carrying police (almost all of them) have much lower rates of officers discharging their firearms. Also, with 100+ million guns in the US, violent crime overall is down substantially over the last several decades. We're at 40 year lows in violent crime. This includes violence against officers. More interestingly, violence of police against citizens is at 40 years highs. All while gun sales have soared over the same period.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >You can't extrapolate that model to the USA, where there are more firearms than citizens I agree unarmed police may be a stretch, but countries like Switzerland (where every home has a gun) or Estonia (which has CCW laws similar to some US states) don't see the same level of police shootings even with armed police.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
clubm8 8y ago
> The fact that the UK can have its officers not carry by default and armed officers only show up for the most extreme situations is a testament to how they are conducting their operations. They also don't enforce every little law with force. They'll often just warn people to not smoke/drink in public, have people shake hands after a small bar fight with no injuries, and generally focus on restoring order rather than locking people up. If someone drives off, they run the plates or use CCTV, dashcam footage, or helicopters to track the driver rather than engage in dangerous chases. Their entire model is "policing by consent"[1] and an American cop would eat their service revolver if they were told they had to approach a yelling homeless man and say "Hi there, is something bothering you? Can we connect you with a social worker?" rather than demand compliance then tase them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
adrianratnapala 8y ago
Yeah, I should have marked my comment as a nitpick. I suspect if you picked Germany or Australia or any of the other "normal" countries where cops do have guns, the stats would look more like the UK than the US. Partly because they too have better procedures.

dfsegoat 8y ago

You can't extrapolate that model to the USA, where there are more firearms than citizens [1]. This means that the average risk / threat an officer may encounter in otherwise routine situations are quite different than the UK, which has very strict firearms policies, since they decided to ban almost all firearms in 1988 / 1997. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there...

HarryHirsch 8y ago
And even with all those firearms available to US citizens, only about 40 police officers are shot dead every year in the US. Being in law enforcement isn't as dangerous as the police unions would like you to think.
- danielvf 8y ago
  I live in the South, and know two officers currently working on the street. In the last five years, between the two of them: someone tried to run the officer over with a truck in a dark alley, a man pointed a shotgun at the officer's head from a few feet away (while carrying three guns and 400 rounds of ammo, and having previously fired several rounds through a house wall), a fleeing criminal pulled to the side of the road and opened fire at the officer, and while responding to an officer who had been shot in the woods, were ambushed by the suspect, who killed the officer next to him, and sent my acquaintance to the hospital for a month. And I don't even live in a high crime area of country!
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    Hey, I've got anecdata, too! My previous institution is on the hook for half a million dollars after an officer-involved shooting. This was a civil settlement, without admission of liability, the usual kind. The officer was permitted to resign. He had racked up an unusual number of disciplinary issues already but was never disciplined for that incident, when he severely injured the student. The police captain was also permitted to resign, even though there were severe concerns about discipline in the force he was overseeing. There was never a criminal trial for either of the two, there rarely is, because of the unholy alliance between the district attorney and the cops. Probably both are working for other police forces nearby, they love officers with a disciplinary record, it shows a willingness to go along and bend the rules. But this is the important anecdote: https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Diabetic-man-has-episode-tased-by-police-502822791.html https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Diabetic-man-has-episode-t... A diabetic man became hypoglycemic and confused, he led the police on a car chase and was then manhandled by two officers after he crashed into a ditch. He would like changes in protocol and can only pussyfoot around the real issue, police brutality, because everyone agrees that he deserved a beating. Or something. As is usual, there is nothing to see here, district attorney sides with the cops. Whatever anecdotes one has, citizens are more at risk from the police than the other way round.
turc1656 8y ago
I'd agree that this means firearms in the UK are much harder to come by for criminals and that this results in a higher risk to officers in the US. However, this risk also applies to all citizens (and non-citizens) in the US as well. In fact since people are far less likely to use a weapon against an officer as opposed to a non-officer, the risk of mere existence as a non-officer in the US is greater. That being said, other 1st world nations with gun-carrying police (almost all of them) have much lower rates of officers discharging their firearms. Also, with 100+ million guns in the US, violent crime overall is down substantially over the last several decades. We're at 40 year lows in violent crime. This includes violence against officers. More interestingly, violence of police against citizens is at 40 years highs. All while gun sales have soared over the same period.
clubm8 8y ago
>You can't extrapolate that model to the USA, where there are more firearms than citizens I agree unarmed police may be a stretch, but countries like Switzerland (where every home has a gun) or Estonia (which has CCW laws similar to some US states) don't see the same level of police shootings even with armed police.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

clubm8 8y ago

> The fact that the UK can have its officers not carry by default and armed officers only show up for the most extreme situations is a testament to how they are conducting their operations. They also don't enforce every little law with force. They'll often just warn people to not smoke/drink in public, have people shake hands after a small bar fight with no injuries, and generally focus on restoring order rather than locking people up. If someone drives off, they run the plates or use CCTV, dashcam footage, or helicopters to track the driver rather than engage in dangerous chases. Their entire model is "policing by consent"[1] and an American cop would eat their service revolver if they were told they had to approach a yelling homeless man and say "Hi there, is something bothering you? Can we connect you with a social worker?" rather than demand compliance then tase them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

adrianratnapala 8y ago

Yeah, I should have marked my comment as a nitpick. I suspect if you picked Germany or Australia or any of the other "normal" countries where cops do have guns, the stats would look more like the UK than the US. Partly because they too have better procedures.