4 ms·

> Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? Criminals carry guns because other criminals carry guns, and because

> Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? Criminals carry guns because other criminals carry guns, and because prospective victims generally do not carry guns. Most criminals are not going to be interested to pull a gun on the police. If they can make the gun disappear when encountering the police, they will. > In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, so might as well give in rather than escalate it to a firefight. In the UK you also don't face the same penalties. If it's twenty-five to life, people are likely to resist arrest by all means. > But generally I think it's crazy that the police in the US are armed. Most policing doesn't need lethal weaponry, and community officers shouldn't be armed. Leave guns to specialist units when required. Sure, most policing doesn't need arms, but most behavior doesn't need policing either. If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Of course that means police kill/injure fewer people, but they also prevent fewer people from killing or injuring others. > I know Floyd wasn't killed with a gun, but I think disarming the police would be the right response and first step towards reducing police violence, as it de-escalates every interaction. It would de-escalate in the sense that there won't be any policing. Officers aren't going to engage a potentially armed criminal with just pepper spray. If you could assume that the person you are trying to arrest most likely does not carry a gun, like in Europe, it would be different. That's just not going to happen in the US.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Great example! Here's how the UK engage someone wielding a machete, without guns or any other weapons beside extendable batons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY They try to deescalate, they bring in reinforcements, they surround, then they disarm him using shields, not weapons, and he survives to stand a fair trial. No guns needed. And if they thought they couldn't arrest him using shields they could call in a specialist firearms unit, who are specifically trained, authorised, and accountable.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  This is ridiculous. You have six or seven officers trying to verbally reason with the screaming guy. Then, at an unspecified later time, you have about twenty to thirty officers subduing the guy. Look, in this case maybe the screaming guy didn't actually intend to hurt anyone. You can tell by the fact that he isn't actually attacking. There also weren't any victims or bystanders involved. Now, what happens if somebody actually tries to assault people? The perpetrator gets shot from a safe distance when those "special units" finally arrive: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50594810 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50594810 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51349664 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51349664 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/09/westminster-shooting-police-kill-suspect-who-had-knives-says-met https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/09/westminster-...
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > This is ridiculous. In the US, this man would be dead. Here, he survived. That's not ridiculous. > Now, what happens if somebody actually tries to assault people? The perpetrator gets shot from a safe distance, when those "special units" finally arrive: Yes - that's how it should be. Leave an actual firefight to specially appointed marksman with specialist weapons, not day-to-day officers waving pistols around. And they don't need those weapons when attending other incidents.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > In the US, this man would be dead. Here, he survived. Well alright, that's one machete-wielding life that was saved. How many non-machete-wielding lives are lost by having an underpowered police force? I guess we'll never know. > That's not ridiculous. It's ridiculous that it takes six or seven officers so long to neutralize the threat, which may not even have been a real threat. > Yes - that's how it should be. Leave an actual firefight to specially appointed marksman with specialist weapons, not day-to-day officers waving pistols around. And they don't need those weapons when attending other incidents. So, you get called to a minor domestic disturbance, the unarmed cops show up and it turns out that the guy in question "upgraded" to a kitchen knife. They'll better be good at keeping him occupied with trivia questions until the properly equipped force shows up. I'm sure there's a trade-off between having police officers armed and dangerous versus having them be harmless. However, most countries in Europe - even those with low crime rates - choose to arm their officers. Deadly incidents remain rare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country
pjc50 6y ago
The rules about who gets engaged and for what seem to vary. The most astonishing thing is the number of black people who've been killed for maybe having something that looked like a gun, then a bunch of armed protestors occupy a government building during the "war on terror" without so much as a single teargas round being fired against them? https://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-open-carry-laws-legal-protesters-guns-at-state-capitol-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-open-carry-laws-leg...

chrisseaton 6y ago

> If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Great example! Here's how the UK engage someone wielding a machete, without guns or any other weapons beside extendable batons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY They try to deescalate, they bring in reinforcements, they surround, then they disarm him using shields, not weapons, and he survives to stand a fair trial. No guns needed. And if they thought they couldn't arrest him using shields they could call in a specialist firearms unit, who are specifically trained, authorised, and accountable.

gridlockd 6y ago
This is ridiculous. You have six or seven officers trying to verbally reason with the screaming guy. Then, at an unspecified later time, you have about twenty to thirty officers subduing the guy. Look, in this case maybe the screaming guy didn't actually intend to hurt anyone. You can tell by the fact that he isn't actually attacking. There also weren't any victims or bystanders involved. Now, what happens if somebody actually tries to assault people? The perpetrator gets shot from a safe distance when those "special units" finally arrive: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50594810 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50594810 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51349664 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51349664 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/09/westminster-shooting-police-kill-suspect-who-had-knives-says-met https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/09/westminster-...
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > This is ridiculous. In the US, this man would be dead. Here, he survived. That's not ridiculous. > Now, what happens if somebody actually tries to assault people? The perpetrator gets shot from a safe distance, when those "special units" finally arrive: Yes - that's how it should be. Leave an actual firefight to specially appointed marksman with specialist weapons, not day-to-day officers waving pistols around. And they don't need those weapons when attending other incidents.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > In the US, this man would be dead. Here, he survived. Well alright, that's one machete-wielding life that was saved. How many non-machete-wielding lives are lost by having an underpowered police force? I guess we'll never know. > That's not ridiculous. It's ridiculous that it takes six or seven officers so long to neutralize the threat, which may not even have been a real threat. > Yes - that's how it should be. Leave an actual firefight to specially appointed marksman with specialist weapons, not day-to-day officers waving pistols around. And they don't need those weapons when attending other incidents. So, you get called to a minor domestic disturbance, the unarmed cops show up and it turns out that the guy in question "upgraded" to a kitchen knife. They'll better be good at keeping him occupied with trivia questions until the properly equipped force shows up. I'm sure there's a trade-off between having police officers armed and dangerous versus having them be harmless. However, most countries in Europe - even those with low crime rates - choose to arm their officers. Deadly incidents remain rare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country

pjc50 6y ago

The rules about who gets engaged and for what seem to vary. The most astonishing thing is the number of black people who've been killed for maybe having something that looked like a gun, then a bunch of armed protestors occupy a government building during the "war on terror" without so much as a single teargas round being fired against them? https://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-open-carry-laws-legal-protesters-guns-at-state-capitol-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-open-carry-laws-leg...