14 ms·

Cops carry guns because the situation can always get out of hand. Violent criminals still exist in society. EDIT: the ignorant people claiming average police o

Cops carry guns because the situation can always get out of hand. Violent criminals still exist in society. EDIT: the ignorant people claiming average police officer does not deal with violent criminals have obviously never worked as a first responder. They deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood. The cops in St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, etc, see it every single day. I hear a lot of suggestions by people have have never done the job. People making spurious claims about what police do and don't deal with on a daily basis. I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs. Cops carry a gun because they have less than 6 seconds to respond to deadly situations that can save lives.

rabidrat 6y ago
If the system worked then you could argue that cops have a reasonable right to be armed. But the system is not working, and 10x people without guns are killed by cops, than are cops killed. Plus whenever a cop is actually killed, the entire system has their back, and justice is almost always served. This is not the case for people without guns who are killed by cops. It's an acceptable loss that a few more cops are killed because we don't arm every single one of them, if it means that a lot more innocent people aren't killed by cops with an itchy trigger finger. Sorry, cops. They've had decades of chances, and this past weekend proves that cops can't control themselves even when they're being called out by the thousands who are recording their behavior for all to see. So now they will have to earn the right to carry lethal weaponry.
- HALtheWise 6y ago
  Can you provide a citation for the 10x number? A quick search shows more like 0.4x, which is quite different.
  - rabidrat 6y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_office...: > According to the FBI, which publishes the data in the Uniform Crime Reports, from 1980–2018, an average of 85 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed per year. Those killed in accidents in the line of duty are not included in that number. From https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2019-we-think-1841183889 https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed...: > In all, there were 1,112 non-suicide-related deaths at the hands of police in 2019
cwkoss 6y ago
In what percentage of police dispatches do they arrive on scene while an armed suspect is still there? I would guess it's significantly lower than 50% Sure, send armed cops to handle situations that force is likely to needed. But cops don't need guns to take down police reports. Rape victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Property crime victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Officers do not need to be armed to write speeding tickets or DUIs. The primary role of police is observation, recording of facts and interacting with the community. 90+% of the time they spend serving society do not require force. We could spend much less on police and have better trained cops when force is actually needed by not even considering arming the half of cops who respond to situations where force is unnecessary. The unarmed cops can cost less because they don't need firearms training and job would be less mentally taxing so they could be paid less: then, they can call in armed cops for the minority of situations where force is necessary. Only give guns to the best cops: the bar to become a cop is way too low to continue arming all of them. I'd love to see a tiered system where cops have to be continually tested and trained to prove they should be entrusted with various levels of force: ex. Camera -> Authorization to use force in arrests -> Pepper Spray -> Stun Gun -> Firearms
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Unless you can tell me ahead of time which police reports are going to end in violence, I suggest you reconsider your thinking. Sometimes something as innocent as a speeding ticket turns into a shooting. Watch some episodes of actual police incidents. Drunk people can be armed. Domestically abused people can live in dangerous neighborhoods with gangs present. Sorry, a camera is not going to defend you from the Latin Kings. Violent criminals do not care about your unicorn ideals. If they sense police are nerfed, they will fill that power vacuum with gang violence and drive out the police. You tell me why Ciudad Juarez is one of the most dangerous cities in the world but El Paso, directly across the U.S.-Mexico border is relatively safe. That's policing.
  - viklove 6y ago
    > You tell me why Ciudad Juarez is one of the most dangerous cities in the world but El Paso, directly across the U.S.-Mexico border is relatively safe. That's policing. Lol, it's not because police are engaging in shoot-outs with the cartel. It's because we have a judicial system that will not stop going after you, and that is all done non-violently.
staticassertion 6y ago
How much of our police force deals with legitimate violent crime? The vast majority of police do not need guns. edit: > hey deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood. Can you back this up? Statistics I've seen do not support your claim, and put violent crimes under 5% of police investigations.
- munificent 6y ago
  If violent crimes are 4% of police investigations, then it still only requires 25 investigations per week for the parent sentence to be true.
- sremani 6y ago
  How do you know before hand if a domestic violence case does not escalate out of hand? How would you access the danger or lack there of in a particular situation before walking into it?
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    Let's go with this. Every domestic violence case may turn violent - and, again just for the sake of argument, we'll assume that this requires the use of deadly force by the police, so we arm them with deadly weapons. If those cases are extremely rare, and stats I've seen show they are, there is still no need for the weapon in the other cases. We can go ahead and disarm the other officers, and have a small portion maintain arms for potentially violent cases in your given scenario Of course, I'd argue that you don't need deadly force even to deal with the majority of potentially violent crimes, but that's a separate matter.
    - sremani 6y ago
      This is like a turkey problem -- every day is a jolly day until thanksgiving comes, once a year.
    - jki275 6y ago
tbabb 6y ago
Plenty of departments in other countries do not carry guns and do their jobs just fine.
- mod 6y ago
  That's not evidence that it could be done in the US.
  - scandox 6y ago
    It's not proof but it is evidence
  - athenot 6y ago
    Indeed. It might be evidence that there are simply way too many guns in the wild in the US; and that statistically, the likelihood of violent conflict is therefore higher in the US than in other countries.
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      Guns won't go away in the US during our lifetime though no matter what laws are passed or how people feel. It's too deeply embedded.
    - adventured 6y ago
      Overall violent crime is not much higher in the US versus other developed nations. Various prominent cities in Europe have serious violent crime problems for example, such as London and Amsterdam. The Netherlands has a higher rate of crime than the US does, and their violence is a lot less lethal. The US rate of lethal violence is higher than its peers and the very easy access to guns is the problem: https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
    - taborj 6y ago
      > the likelihood of violent conflict using a firearm is therefore higher Violent conflict exists everywhere.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Cops typically carry guns, tasers, a knife, pepper spray, and a baton. Cops in patrol cars also have additional gear in the trunk. Maybe people react poorly to heavily-armed people trying to intimidate them? If we focus only on downside risk then eventually all scenarios require Robocop.
mitchdoogle 6y ago
Bombs exist in society too. Should every officer be trained in defusing a bomb and walk around in a blast suit? No, because that's ridiculous and an uncommon situation. Just like the vast majority of police encounters don't require lethal weapons.
threatofrain 6y ago
According to 538, police interactions have been trending safer in urban areas but rural and suburban areas are becoming more dangerous. It may be the small town cop who is most dangerous, but the big city cop who is most visible.
craftinator 6y ago
So should we carry guns for when cops get out of hand, and start acting like criminals? Your statement seems to suggest that the lives of cops are worth more than the lives of everyone else...
garlicGum 6y ago
They take a job to protect the community. That would seem they are accepting the danger that comes with the job, but for the low low price of a gun they are passing that danger on to you! Yay! Right now, cops are legal bullies that we have to suffer under.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> suicide Is this supposed to be a violent crime now? Cops should not even deal with the police.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > Cops should not even deal with the police. Sorry, I meant that this should not be something that the police deals with.
craftinator 6y ago
> I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs. Uhhhhh, damn dude. Words kinda fail me here. As a male Marine, with several years practice in BJJ, I find your comment either offensive, or just plain stupid. I've had my ass kicked many, many times by female Marines. I had several MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Art Program) trainers who were female. For that job, you are required to win at full contact hand to hand combat with people bigger and stronger than you. Your comment is sexist for one, and ignorant for another. I have a few female friends who've read your comment, and would like to have a friendly roll with you, if you are game.

rabidrat 6y ago

If the system worked then you could argue that cops have a reasonable right to be armed. But the system is not working, and 10x people without guns are killed by cops, than are cops killed. Plus whenever a cop is actually killed, the entire system has their back, and justice is almost always served. This is not the case for people without guns who are killed by cops. It's an acceptable loss that a few more cops are killed because we don't arm every single one of them, if it means that a lot more innocent people aren't killed by cops with an itchy trigger finger. Sorry, cops. They've had decades of chances, and this past weekend proves that cops can't control themselves even when they're being called out by the thousands who are recording their behavior for all to see. So now they will have to earn the right to carry lethal weaponry.

HALtheWise 6y ago
Can you provide a citation for the 10x number? A quick search shows more like 0.4x, which is quite different.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_office...: > According to the FBI, which publishes the data in the Uniform Crime Reports, from 1980–2018, an average of 85 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed per year. Those killed in accidents in the line of duty are not included in that number. From https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2019-we-think-1841183889 https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed...: > In all, there were 1,112 non-suicide-related deaths at the hands of police in 2019

cwkoss 6y ago

In what percentage of police dispatches do they arrive on scene while an armed suspect is still there? I would guess it's significantly lower than 50% Sure, send armed cops to handle situations that force is likely to needed. But cops don't need guns to take down police reports. Rape victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Property crime victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Officers do not need to be armed to write speeding tickets or DUIs. The primary role of police is observation, recording of facts and interacting with the community. 90+% of the time they spend serving society do not require force. We could spend much less on police and have better trained cops when force is actually needed by not even considering arming the half of cops who respond to situations where force is unnecessary. The unarmed cops can cost less because they don't need firearms training and job would be less mentally taxing so they could be paid less: then, they can call in armed cops for the minority of situations where force is necessary. Only give guns to the best cops: the bar to become a cop is way too low to continue arming all of them. I'd love to see a tiered system where cops have to be continually tested and trained to prove they should be entrusted with various levels of force: ex. Camera -> Authorization to use force in arrests -> Pepper Spray -> Stun Gun -> Firearms

chrisco255 6y ago
Unless you can tell me ahead of time which police reports are going to end in violence, I suggest you reconsider your thinking. Sometimes something as innocent as a speeding ticket turns into a shooting. Watch some episodes of actual police incidents. Drunk people can be armed. Domestically abused people can live in dangerous neighborhoods with gangs present. Sorry, a camera is not going to defend you from the Latin Kings. Violent criminals do not care about your unicorn ideals. If they sense police are nerfed, they will fill that power vacuum with gang violence and drive out the police. You tell me why Ciudad Juarez is one of the most dangerous cities in the world but El Paso, directly across the U.S.-Mexico border is relatively safe. That's policing.
- viklove 6y ago
  > You tell me why Ciudad Juarez is one of the most dangerous cities in the world but El Paso, directly across the U.S.-Mexico border is relatively safe. That's policing. Lol, it's not because police are engaging in shoot-outs with the cartel. It's because we have a judicial system that will not stop going after you, and that is all done non-violently.

staticassertion 6y ago

How much of our police force deals with legitimate violent crime? The vast majority of police do not need guns. edit: > hey deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood. Can you back this up? Statistics I've seen do not support your claim, and put violent crimes under 5% of police investigations.

munificent 6y ago
If violent crimes are 4% of police investigations, then it still only requires 25 investigations per week for the parent sentence to be true.
sremani 6y ago
How do you know before hand if a domestic violence case does not escalate out of hand? How would you access the danger or lack there of in a particular situation before walking into it?
- staticassertion 6y ago
  Let's go with this. Every domestic violence case may turn violent - and, again just for the sake of argument, we'll assume that this requires the use of deadly force by the police, so we arm them with deadly weapons. If those cases are extremely rare, and stats I've seen show they are, there is still no need for the weapon in the other cases. We can go ahead and disarm the other officers, and have a small portion maintain arms for potentially violent cases in your given scenario Of course, I'd argue that you don't need deadly force even to deal with the majority of potentially violent crimes, but that's a separate matter.
  - sremani 6y ago
    This is like a turkey problem -- every day is a jolly day until thanksgiving comes, once a year.
  - jki275 6y ago

tbabb 6y ago

Plenty of departments in other countries do not carry guns and do their jobs just fine.

mod 6y ago
That's not evidence that it could be done in the US.
- scandox 6y ago
  It's not proof but it is evidence
- athenot 6y ago
  Indeed. It might be evidence that there are simply way too many guns in the wild in the US; and that statistically, the likelihood of violent conflict is therefore higher in the US than in other countries.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    Guns won't go away in the US during our lifetime though no matter what laws are passed or how people feel. It's too deeply embedded.
  - adventured 6y ago
    Overall violent crime is not much higher in the US versus other developed nations. Various prominent cities in Europe have serious violent crime problems for example, such as London and Amsterdam. The Netherlands has a higher rate of crime than the US does, and their violence is a lot less lethal. The US rate of lethal violence is higher than its peers and the very easy access to guns is the problem: https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
  - taborj 6y ago
    > the likelihood of violent conflict using a firearm is therefore higher Violent conflict exists everywhere.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Cops typically carry guns, tasers, a knife, pepper spray, and a baton. Cops in patrol cars also have additional gear in the trunk. Maybe people react poorly to heavily-armed people trying to intimidate them? If we focus only on downside risk then eventually all scenarios require Robocop.

mitchdoogle 6y ago

Bombs exist in society too. Should every officer be trained in defusing a bomb and walk around in a blast suit? No, because that's ridiculous and an uncommon situation. Just like the vast majority of police encounters don't require lethal weapons.

threatofrain 6y ago

According to 538, police interactions have been trending safer in urban areas but rural and suburban areas are becoming more dangerous. It may be the small town cop who is most dangerous, but the big city cop who is most visible.

craftinator 6y ago

So should we carry guns for when cops get out of hand, and start acting like criminals? Your statement seems to suggest that the lives of cops are worth more than the lives of everyone else...

garlicGum 6y ago

They take a job to protect the community. That would seem they are accepting the danger that comes with the job, but for the low low price of a gun they are passing that danger on to you! Yay! Right now, cops are legal bullies that we have to suffer under.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> suicide Is this supposed to be a violent crime now? Cops should not even deal with the police.

dependenttypes 6y ago
> Cops should not even deal with the police. Sorry, I meant that this should not be something that the police deals with.

craftinator 6y ago

> I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs. Uhhhhh, damn dude. Words kinda fail me here. As a male Marine, with several years practice in BJJ, I find your comment either offensive, or just plain stupid. I've had my ass kicked many, many times by female Marines. I had several MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Art Program) trainers who were female. For that job, you are required to win at full contact hand to hand combat with people bigger and stronger than you. Your comment is sexist for one, and ignorant for another. I have a few female friends who've read your comment, and would like to have a friendly roll with you, if you are game.