6 ms·

Largely because officers don't know what situations will warrant them. and over 2,500 cops are assaulted with firearms, with 250+ of those resulting in the cop

Largely because officers don't know what situations will warrant them. and over 2,500 cops are assaulted with firearms, with 250+ of those resulting in the cop being shot each year in the US, and this often happens during routine traffic stops. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12507 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12... [2] https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/dallas/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-statistics-for-law-enforcement-officers-assaulted-and-killed-in-the-line-of-duty https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/dallas/news/pre...

valleyer 4y ago
This is a good point that I thought about but clearly don't appreciate enough. Thanks for the stats.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
But in the case with the lady with 4 kids? Sounds a bit overblown for the situation indeed. But here in Europe cops rarely even draw their guns (and in some countries don't even carry them)
- powerhour 4y ago
  Isn't it crazy they couldn't just follow her until she stopped and got out of her rental and then assess the risk of contact? We should probably change our police hiring and training processes.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    Unless they can assess the situation without being observed, that could end up worse. If it's a carjacking, it could lead to dead hostages. They're trained to move fast once visible.
pb7 4y ago
Police isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs. Crossing guards get killed more per capita. Crossing guards.
- 1986 4y ago
  You're also more likely as a civilian, on a per capita basis, to be killed by a gun than you are as a cop.
- tzs 4y ago
  That's one of those things that sounds relevant when you first hear it, but then if you spend a moment thinking about it you realize it isn't. That job Y is higher risk than job X has no relevance to whether or not steps should be taken to mitigate risks on job X, unless either for some reason mitigating risks on job X would prevent mitigating risks on job Y and so those resources would be more effective going toward mitigating Y's risks, or you want to argue that there is some threshold and people in jobs whose risks are below that threshold should not try to mitigate those risks.
  - mushbino 4y ago
    Crossing guards should be armed and trained to unload on any car they think might not stop fast enough. If cops can do it without repercussions, why not them?
  - tzs 4y ago
    Another problem with offering higher risk to crossing guards as an argument against police having guns is that the exact same fact, crossing guards having a higher on the job death rate than police, works equally well or better as an argument for police having guns. When a given fact supports both sides equally well in an argument that is pretty much the definition of an irrelevant fact. Crossing guard death rates on the job appear to be around 19 per 100k. For police in the US the rate varies quite a bit year to year, ranging from around 14 per 100k to around double that. The average depends on over what time period you look, so it is not clear if it is actually higher or lower than that of crossing guards, but whichever it is it is not very far from that of crossing guards. But that is the rate for police with guns. The comparison you want if you are arguing against police guns is the rate without guns. Using the rate with guns to argue against guns is like arguing that golf tournaments should not shut down when a lightning storm passes over because the rate of people being killed at golf tournaments that shut down during lightning storms is so low.

valleyer 4y ago

This is a good point that I thought about but clearly don't appreciate enough. Thanks for the stats.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

But in the case with the lady with 4 kids? Sounds a bit overblown for the situation indeed. But here in Europe cops rarely even draw their guns (and in some countries don't even carry them)

powerhour 4y ago
Isn't it crazy they couldn't just follow her until she stopped and got out of her rental and then assess the risk of contact? We should probably change our police hiring and training processes.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Unless they can assess the situation without being observed, that could end up worse. If it's a carjacking, it could lead to dead hostages. They're trained to move fast once visible.

pb7 4y ago

Police isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs. Crossing guards get killed more per capita. Crossing guards.

1986 4y ago
You're also more likely as a civilian, on a per capita basis, to be killed by a gun than you are as a cop.
tzs 4y ago
That's one of those things that sounds relevant when you first hear it, but then if you spend a moment thinking about it you realize it isn't. That job Y is higher risk than job X has no relevance to whether or not steps should be taken to mitigate risks on job X, unless either for some reason mitigating risks on job X would prevent mitigating risks on job Y and so those resources would be more effective going toward mitigating Y's risks, or you want to argue that there is some threshold and people in jobs whose risks are below that threshold should not try to mitigate those risks.
- mushbino 4y ago
  Crossing guards should be armed and trained to unload on any car they think might not stop fast enough. If cops can do it without repercussions, why not them?
- tzs 4y ago
  Another problem with offering higher risk to crossing guards as an argument against police having guns is that the exact same fact, crossing guards having a higher on the job death rate than police, works equally well or better as an argument for police having guns. When a given fact supports both sides equally well in an argument that is pretty much the definition of an irrelevant fact. Crossing guard death rates on the job appear to be around 19 per 100k. For police in the US the rate varies quite a bit year to year, ranging from around 14 per 100k to around double that. The average depends on over what time period you look, so it is not clear if it is actually higher or lower than that of crossing guards, but whichever it is it is not very far from that of crossing guards. But that is the rate for police with guns. The comparison you want if you are arguing against police guns is the rate without guns. Using the rate with guns to argue against guns is like arguing that golf tournaments should not shut down when a lightning storm passes over because the rate of people being killed at golf tournaments that shut down during lightning storms is so low.