3 ms·
It's not clear how "there is a non-zero chance a motorist has a gun" leads to the conclusion that "all traffic enforcement must have a gun".
by andrewprock 6y ago
It's not clear how "there is a non-zero chance a motorist has a gun" leads to the conclusion that "all traffic enforcement must have a gun".
- raarts 6y agoAs someone from the Netherlands I can say there's a non-zero chance that a motorist has a gun. It's smaller than the US, but it's not zero. Still our cops carry guns. In the US the chances are way, way higher. I can understand that cops are armed there.
- solzhenitsyn 6y agoIt's to mitigate that risk factor. You wear your seatbelt every time you drive as "there is a non-zero chance you will crash" even though the vast majority of the time wearing the seat belt was unnecessary.
- starkd 6y agoBecause the cop showing up doesn't know before hand whether or not the motorist have a gun. There's a lot of other things they don't know. The person could be a drug/human trafficker, or have a warrant out for him. In which case, they are armed.