4 ms·

Doubtful. The United States has had a high level of gun ownership for several hundred years. The police response of "respond to anonymous tip by kicking down t

by donw 7y ago

Doubtful. The United States has had a high level of gun ownership for several hundred years. The police response of "respond to anonymous tip by kicking down the door and opening fire" seems to be a mostly post-9/11 thing. I suspect that the root causes are multifold: (1) No-knock warrants became legal in 1995 to prevent the "destruction of evidence" during drug busts. (2) Americans got really paranoid after 9/11, and more tolerant of this sort of police activity. (3) Increasingly harsh prison conditions and unfair sentencing encourages suspects to fight back, rather than comply with law enforcement. (4) We have a number of well-funded and well-trained paramilitary criminal organizations in the United States, thanks largely to the War on Drugs and decades of poorly-thought-out immigration policy.

whyaduck 7y ago
High powered semi-automatic long and hand guns with high capacity magazines loaded with hollow-point or armor piercing rounds have not been common in the US for several hundred years.
- donw 7y ago
  Winchester repearting rifles were popular as of 1870. As they held 16 rounds, could be rapidly fired, and were easily reloaded, there is a strong argument that these were, in fact, the first assault rifles. Modern semi-automatic (double-action) revolvers were commonplace as of 1900. Both of the above fired highly lethal ammunition, with rates of fire and reload not that far from modern semi-automatics, which were themselves common by the 1920s. At which time you could mail-order a machine gun to your front door, which is So Not Even Remotely Close To Legal today. Body armor suitable for police wouldn't become commonplace until the 2000s. Ergo, for 130+ years, the police faced a populace armed with high-capacity assault weapons. And for most of that time, they did so with six-shot .38 revolvers and no bulletproof vests. And only in the past twenty-odd years has kicking in doors with guns blazing become, somehow, necessary. So, no, gun ownership, even of high-powered, high-capacity assault weapons, doesn't correlate at all to police violence.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Right, as you say, it started with the War on Drugs.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by donw 7y ago

whyaduck 7y ago

High powered semi-automatic long and hand guns with high capacity magazines loaded with hollow-point or armor piercing rounds have not been common in the US for several hundred years.

donw 7y ago
Winchester repearting rifles were popular as of 1870. As they held 16 rounds, could be rapidly fired, and were easily reloaded, there is a strong argument that these were, in fact, the first assault rifles. Modern semi-automatic (double-action) revolvers were commonplace as of 1900. Both of the above fired highly lethal ammunition, with rates of fire and reload not that far from modern semi-automatics, which were themselves common by the 1920s. At which time you could mail-order a machine gun to your front door, which is So Not Even Remotely Close To Legal today. Body armor suitable for police wouldn't become commonplace until the 2000s. Ergo, for 130+ years, the police faced a populace armed with high-capacity assault weapons. And for most of that time, they did so with six-shot .38 revolvers and no bulletproof vests. And only in the past twenty-odd years has kicking in doors with guns blazing become, somehow, necessary. So, no, gun ownership, even of high-powered, high-capacity assault weapons, doesn't correlate at all to police violence.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Right, as you say, it started with the War on Drugs.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]