8 ms·

American here — we have more guns per capita than any other country in the world. In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it mak

by alehul 6y ago

American here — we have more guns per capita than any other country in the world. In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it makes sense that the police wouldn't need guns either. In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed. It would make no sense to tell an officer "you can't carry a gun" when both average citizens and the criminals have guns. While the UK undoubtedly has a fine model for itself, it can't be extrapolated to a country where gun ownership is so common.

_bxg1 6y ago
That's a fair point- such a change might have stricter gun control as a prerequisite (which for the record I think we also need). I was struck recently, when I saw The Gentlemen (a film about marijuana empires in the UK). Even the crime lords were very averse to carrying guns because it was so illegal. People here always counter with "but the criminals will find ways to get them anyway", but I don't think that's a valid argument.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  I don't know what to tell you if your political beliefs are informed by movies.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    Why would a detail like that be fictional? Anyway, it lines up with the statistics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 > In England and Wales in 2016-17, there were 31 fatal shootings - or one for every 1.9 million people. > In the US, in contrast, there were 11,000 murders or manslaughters involving a firearm or one death for every 30,000 people.
    - radford-neal 6y ago
      That's a factor of 63 more fatal shootings in the US versus UK. I don't know whether it's correct or not, but it's certainly misleading. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... the homicide rate per 100000 people is 5.3 in the US versus 1.2 in the UK, a factor of 4.4 difference. Yes, more, but not 63 times more. I think most people don't care whether they are going to be killed by a gun or by some other means.
kirkeby 6y ago
So fucking what, yuour cops are pussies, and need to stop being pussies, any words beyond that is fascism. Feel free to downvote, just know that it is not my boot on your face.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed. It's a fairly common occurrence in the US for the highway patrol to pull over a driver for speeding, the driver has a firearm, the police issue a speeding citation and everyone goes on their way. How does that require the police to be armed? Do you think it likely that typical motorists would be willing to shoot a police officer in order to avoid a traffic citation? Or that the infinitesimal minority crazy enough to do that are going to be deterred if the police are armed as well? Ordinary police officers don't need firearms because ordinary police officers are not especially likely to have anyone try to shoot at them. The situation is different if they're executing a warrant on a meth lab, but exceptional situations are exceptional and routine situations are not.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  It's a fairly common occurrence for me to drive to the grocery store, buy my groceries, and return home without crashing. Yet, I wear my seatbelt for the worst-case outcome not the typical or most common outcome. Likewise, I wouldn't issue police equipment based on the extremely common case where a policeman doesn't need a vest nor a gun all day and, in fact, on the majority of days doesn't even need their set of handcuffs.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The difference is that a seatbelt or a vest or a set of handcuffs doesn't escalate existing conflicts or cause civilian fatalities. Or to put it another way, aren't you arguing that all civilians should carry firearms as well? After all, there could be a mugger, or a rapist, or a grizzly bear. Better to have it and not need it, right?
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Don't they then become targets? There is a subculture of anti-police thought and behavior in the US (witness this thread). Do the mental exercise: will police injuries/deaths increase/decrease if they were unarmed?
tehwebguy 6y ago
I think cops should be specifically banned from owning guns, even personally, until every current cop is removed from the policing system and all policies are replaced. The current system teaches them to be terrified, criminal psychopaths with no understanding of human beings or deescalation. Giving them a gun is not protection, it's culpable negligence. The people we are letting become cops in America are the exact people who should a) never be handed a weapon and b) never be given authority.

by alehul 6y ago

_bxg1 6y ago

That's a fair point- such a change might have stricter gun control as a prerequisite (which for the record I think we also need). I was struck recently, when I saw The Gentlemen (a film about marijuana empires in the UK). Even the crime lords were very averse to carrying guns because it was so illegal. People here always counter with "but the criminals will find ways to get them anyway", but I don't think that's a valid argument.

deathgrips 6y ago
I don't know what to tell you if your political beliefs are informed by movies.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  Why would a detail like that be fictional? Anyway, it lines up with the statistics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 > In England and Wales in 2016-17, there were 31 fatal shootings - or one for every 1.9 million people. > In the US, in contrast, there were 11,000 murders or manslaughters involving a firearm or one death for every 30,000 people.
  - radford-neal 6y ago
    That's a factor of 63 more fatal shootings in the US versus UK. I don't know whether it's correct or not, but it's certainly misleading. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... the homicide rate per 100000 people is 5.3 in the US versus 1.2 in the UK, a factor of 4.4 difference. Yes, more, but not 63 times more. I think most people don't care whether they are going to be killed by a gun or by some other means.

kirkeby 6y ago

So fucking what, yuour cops are pussies, and need to stop being pussies, any words beyond that is fascism. Feel free to downvote, just know that it is not my boot on your face.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed. It's a fairly common occurrence in the US for the highway patrol to pull over a driver for speeding, the driver has a firearm, the police issue a speeding citation and everyone goes on their way. How does that require the police to be armed? Do you think it likely that typical motorists would be willing to shoot a police officer in order to avoid a traffic citation? Or that the infinitesimal minority crazy enough to do that are going to be deterred if the police are armed as well? Ordinary police officers don't need firearms because ordinary police officers are not especially likely to have anyone try to shoot at them. The situation is different if they're executing a warrant on a meth lab, but exceptional situations are exceptional and routine situations are not.

sokoloff 6y ago
It's a fairly common occurrence for me to drive to the grocery store, buy my groceries, and return home without crashing. Yet, I wear my seatbelt for the worst-case outcome not the typical or most common outcome. Likewise, I wouldn't issue police equipment based on the extremely common case where a policeman doesn't need a vest nor a gun all day and, in fact, on the majority of days doesn't even need their set of handcuffs.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The difference is that a seatbelt or a vest or a set of handcuffs doesn't escalate existing conflicts or cause civilian fatalities. Or to put it another way, aren't you arguing that all civilians should carry firearms as well? After all, there could be a mugger, or a rapist, or a grizzly bear. Better to have it and not need it, right?
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Don't they then become targets? There is a subculture of anti-police thought and behavior in the US (witness this thread). Do the mental exercise: will police injuries/deaths increase/decrease if they were unarmed?

tehwebguy 6y ago

I think cops should be specifically banned from owning guns, even personally, until every current cop is removed from the policing system and all policies are replaced. The current system teaches them to be terrified, criminal psychopaths with no understanding of human beings or deescalation. Giving them a gun is not protection, it's culpable negligence. The people we are letting become cops in America are the exact people who should a) never be handed a weapon and b) never be given authority.