6 ms·

I've been reading the Economist for 20+ years now and it never ceases to amaze me that while there is some excellent journalism, they really don't get the Unite

I've been reading the Economist for 20+ years now and it never ceases to amaze me that while there is some excellent journalism, they really don't get the United States. Statements like "If America did not have 300m guns in circulation, much of this would change." show their bias, rather than having anything to do with the way the US turns everything - drugs, immigration, poverty - into a policing issue infused with violence. Does the Economist really believe that American gun ownership is a good excuse for why (in my case) rural police departments feel it necessary to be buying mine resistant vehicles? The whole situation is out of control, but like so many issues in American life, the Economist really misses the cultural and social picture.

res0nat0r 12y ago
The actual title of this article is "America's Police on Trial" so I don't think this editorial is trying to apply itself to every area of US law. They qualify the above statement in the prior paragraph: "One reason why so many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are armed."
- Crito 12y ago
  Even with that qualification that is still crap logic. There are lots of guns in America, but the number of Americans who own guns are at all-time lows. The "number of guns in America" figure is deceptive because of all of the people who own dozens to hundreds of guns. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-o... Arresting somebody who owns one or two guns is really not inherently safer than arresting somebody who owns a few crates of guns, so the number of guns in the country is irrelevant. The number of gun owners is relevant. The apparent upward trend in police militarization and the number of Americans that own guns simply do not correlate. The Economist's unfamiliarity with American culture (particularly American gun culture) explains how they could make this mistake.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    It isn't because gun ownership is up, it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns. We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any first world country. The two are directly related.
    - Crito 12y ago
      > "it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns" Police in America are less likely today to encounter guns than they were 40 years ago, but police shootings are apparently at all time highs. If their theory held water, that would not be the case.
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        The USA still has 300 million guns. This is far and beyond any other first world country, so yes this is in fact related to police in the USA more likely shooting first than they would in other countries which do not have such an insane saturation of guns like the USA.
        Crito 12y ago
        When you have a hypothesis, you have to try making predictions with it and see if it fits real-world data. If it doesn't, then it is wrong. It doesn't matter how elegant or beautiful your hypothesis is, if it does not fit the data then it is wrong. Your hypothesis does not fit the data.
fidotron 12y ago
True. Gun control generally is something a lot of Brits just default to thinking is a necessary thing, while not actually having considered it in much depth. (This is largely a reflex to the Dunblane incident, and they can't understand why anyone would disagree with the resulting course of action). The thing is both sides are kind of wrong. London has far more gun crime than much of the US does (personally I ran into three firearms incidents without trying) which really should provoke much more soul searching in the UK than it does (they delude themselves into thinking the whole US is uniformly dangerous), however, British cops, while by no means perfect, are enormously less likely to be in aggressive by default mode. Obviously it does happen quite a bit, but nothing like the same antagonism that you have in North America.
- elwaz 12y ago
  "London has far more gun crime than much of the US does" Can we get a figure to back that up please? The MET places gun crime figures in greater London at 1570 (http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/ http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/) with a population of approx 8 million. Which American populations would you compare this to and what are their figures? I've spent a significant amount of time in London and have never once run into any firearms incidents. It would be interesting to me to see the data behind this.
  - Crito 12y ago
    There is no shortage of small communities across America that have not had a gun crime in decades. Zero stays zero, even when you make it per-capita. Whether or not this is a fair comparison is another matter.
    - elwaz 12y ago
      Fair call. To clear that up I would count urbanised centres of a similar population size and density would be a reasonable basis of comparison. I imagine England would have a large number of small communities with zero gun crime as well.
MarkMc 12y ago
Those vehicles may be mine-resistant, but perhaps your police department is buying them primarily because they are bullet-resistant? Clearly, arresting a suspected drug dealer is far more dangerous in the US than in the UK - and widespread gun ownership is a reasonable explanation for that diference.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

res0nat0r 12y ago

The actual title of this article is "America's Police on Trial" so I don't think this editorial is trying to apply itself to every area of US law. They qualify the above statement in the prior paragraph: "One reason why so many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are armed."

Crito 12y ago
Even with that qualification that is still crap logic. There are lots of guns in America, but the number of Americans who own guns are at all-time lows. The "number of guns in America" figure is deceptive because of all of the people who own dozens to hundreds of guns. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-o... Arresting somebody who owns one or two guns is really not inherently safer than arresting somebody who owns a few crates of guns, so the number of guns in the country is irrelevant. The number of gun owners is relevant. The apparent upward trend in police militarization and the number of Americans that own guns simply do not correlate. The Economist's unfamiliarity with American culture (particularly American gun culture) explains how they could make this mistake.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  It isn't because gun ownership is up, it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns. We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any first world country. The two are directly related.
  - Crito 12y ago
    > "it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns" Police in America are less likely today to encounter guns than they were 40 years ago, but police shootings are apparently at all time highs. If their theory held water, that would not be the case.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      The USA still has 300 million guns. This is far and beyond any other first world country, so yes this is in fact related to police in the USA more likely shooting first than they would in other countries which do not have such an insane saturation of guns like the USA.
      - Crito 12y ago
        When you have a hypothesis, you have to try making predictions with it and see if it fits real-world data. If it doesn't, then it is wrong. It doesn't matter how elegant or beautiful your hypothesis is, if it does not fit the data then it is wrong. Your hypothesis does not fit the data.

fidotron 12y ago

True. Gun control generally is something a lot of Brits just default to thinking is a necessary thing, while not actually having considered it in much depth. (This is largely a reflex to the Dunblane incident, and they can't understand why anyone would disagree with the resulting course of action). The thing is both sides are kind of wrong. London has far more gun crime than much of the US does (personally I ran into three firearms incidents without trying) which really should provoke much more soul searching in the UK than it does (they delude themselves into thinking the whole US is uniformly dangerous), however, British cops, while by no means perfect, are enormously less likely to be in aggressive by default mode. Obviously it does happen quite a bit, but nothing like the same antagonism that you have in North America.

elwaz 12y ago
"London has far more gun crime than much of the US does" Can we get a figure to back that up please? The MET places gun crime figures in greater London at 1570 (http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/ http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/) with a population of approx 8 million. Which American populations would you compare this to and what are their figures? I've spent a significant amount of time in London and have never once run into any firearms incidents. It would be interesting to me to see the data behind this.
- Crito 12y ago
  There is no shortage of small communities across America that have not had a gun crime in decades. Zero stays zero, even when you make it per-capita. Whether or not this is a fair comparison is another matter.
  - elwaz 12y ago
    Fair call. To clear that up I would count urbanised centres of a similar population size and density would be a reasonable basis of comparison. I imagine England would have a large number of small communities with zero gun crime as well.

MarkMc 12y ago

Those vehicles may be mine-resistant, but perhaps your police department is buying them primarily because they are bullet-resistant? Clearly, arresting a suspected drug dealer is far more dangerous in the US than in the UK - and widespread gun ownership is a reasonable explanation for that diference.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]