4 ms·

Honest question: what probability of finding a shooter is the “right” threshold to go in armed and expecting a shooter?

by SilasX 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago
You'd have to ask London police, since they don't. So my Fermi estimate would be somewhere between US and UK rates.
- halostatue 4y ago
  Let’s tighten that up, some. Canadian police are armed with lethal weapons and need to go into active shooter situations less often than the U.S., which is a wildcard outlier of gun violence, second only to active war zones.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    You're both misreading the question. The question was not "how often do police go in expecting a shooter?" The question was, "what 'probability of there being a shooter' justifies going in armed/with a protocol that expects one?" User:shadowgovt, if you followed the thread, was asking us to be outraged that they went in when it was "only" 7%: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 But yes, "tighten up" those Fermi estimates for a question no one asked and which has no bearing on the discussion.
- SilasX 4y ago
  >You'd have to ask London police, since they don't. No, I wouldn't, because your facts are wrong. Yes, London police are generally unarmed, but they still get called to respond to situations where there is a likely armed suspect, and in those cases, they send in special units that are armed. The question here -- that you avoided -- is, what is the appropriate probability before sending in such an officer, and is it higher than the 7% in the situation you cited? You were asking others to be outraged that there was "only" a 7% chance of an actual armed shooter. In an attempt to move the discussion forward, I asked what the appropriate value is, so as to appropriately judge whether such intervention was unwarranted. To which your entire response was to shoehorn in an irrelevant factoid about London and falsely imply I'm not aware of it. (And, of course, work in a Fermi reference, because, why not?) If I may make a suggestion: next time someone asks a substantive question, and you don't have a substantive answer, just don't reply. That's a much better approach for the forum than what you just did.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    If your claim is that the police should always show up armed and expecting to be shot at in the United States because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of a private citizen to own a firearm, then the conclusion is that every instance of calling the police out to respond is a possible fatal shooting in the making. That is definitely a conclusion others have reached (https://dontcallthepolice.com/about/ https://dontcallthepolice.com/about/). In that context, ShotSpotter's mechanism bordering on ascientific prognostication should be considered dangerous to the community because it is increasing the chances of fatal encounters for no benefit. It's basically SWATting with a fancy corporate branding.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      >If your claim is that the police should always show up armed and expecting to be shot at in the United States What part of my comment is that (or anything else you've said) responding to? I asked a simple question: what is the appropriate "probability of a shooter" that justifies going in with a protocol that expects one? Now you're just guessing things that have little to do with what I said.

Honest question: what probability of finding a shooter is the “right” threshold to go in armed and expecting a shooter?

by SilasX 4y ago

Honest question: what probability of finding a shooter is the “right” threshold to go in armed and expecting a shooter?

shadowgovt 4y ago

You'd have to ask London police, since they don't. So my Fermi estimate would be somewhere between US and UK rates.

halostatue 4y ago
Let’s tighten that up, some. Canadian police are armed with lethal weapons and need to go into active shooter situations less often than the U.S., which is a wildcard outlier of gun violence, second only to active war zones.
- SilasX 4y ago
  You're both misreading the question. The question was not "how often do police go in expecting a shooter?" The question was, "what 'probability of there being a shooter' justifies going in armed/with a protocol that expects one?" User:shadowgovt, if you followed the thread, was asking us to be outraged that they went in when it was "only" 7%: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 But yes, "tighten up" those Fermi estimates for a question no one asked and which has no bearing on the discussion.
SilasX 4y ago
>You'd have to ask London police, since they don't. No, I wouldn't, because your facts are wrong. Yes, London police are generally unarmed, but they still get called to respond to situations where there is a likely armed suspect, and in those cases, they send in special units that are armed. The question here -- that you avoided -- is, what is the appropriate probability before sending in such an officer, and is it higher than the 7% in the situation you cited? You were asking others to be outraged that there was "only" a 7% chance of an actual armed shooter. In an attempt to move the discussion forward, I asked what the appropriate value is, so as to appropriately judge whether such intervention was unwarranted. To which your entire response was to shoehorn in an irrelevant factoid about London and falsely imply I'm not aware of it. (And, of course, work in a Fermi reference, because, why not?) If I may make a suggestion: next time someone asks a substantive question, and you don't have a substantive answer, just don't reply. That's a much better approach for the forum than what you just did.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  If your claim is that the police should always show up armed and expecting to be shot at in the United States because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of a private citizen to own a firearm, then the conclusion is that every instance of calling the police out to respond is a possible fatal shooting in the making. That is definitely a conclusion others have reached (https://dontcallthepolice.com/about/ https://dontcallthepolice.com/about/). In that context, ShotSpotter's mechanism bordering on ascientific prognostication should be considered dangerous to the community because it is increasing the chances of fatal encounters for no benefit. It's basically SWATting with a fancy corporate branding.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    >If your claim is that the police should always show up armed and expecting to be shot at in the United States What part of my comment is that (or anything else you've said) responding to? I asked a simple question: what is the appropriate "probability of a shooter" that justifies going in with a protocol that expects one? Now you're just guessing things that have little to do with what I said.