9 ms·

And this is the problem with guns, imagine if the police didn't have any guns and they would have to approach him by first. Obviously they outnumber him but kno

And this is the problem with guns, imagine if the police didn't have any guns and they would have to approach him by first. Obviously they outnumber him but know (unless he has a lethal weapon on him) there shouldn't be any lethal force. Guns escalate the situation way too quickly to a life threatening one ...

k-mcgrady 12y ago
That's how it works in the UK I think. Police don't regularly carry firearms and specially trained firearms officers are called in when necessary. I think the problem with this approach in the US is that guns are way more available and way more likely to used in a crime (I don't actually have figures on this but it seems a reasonable assumption). Edit: Replaced incorrect use of 'weapons' with 'firearms'.
- robin_reala 12y ago
  Police carry weapons (truncheons, pepper spray, sometimes tasers), just not firearms by default.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Sorry, I was using weapon/firearm interchangeably by mistake. I meant firearm.
- AlecSchueler 12y ago
  What you're saying is correct, but just to be pedantic: police in Northern Ireland are armed at all times, and are allowed to be armed even while off duty.
  - easytiger 12y ago
    And yet practically no police use of firearms is recorded. They have to declare each time they unholster the weapon
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Sure, I'm from NI so aware of that. It's a unique situation though and I thought it best to leave out rather than confuse my point that there are police forces that work without firearms.
    - AlecSchueler 12y ago
      I had the same thought, but felt it was best to be clear that the practice isn't unheard of in the United Kingdom.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  They still make mistakes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze... ), but since it takes a little more work, I'll assume they make fewer mistakes.
  - Brakenshire 12y ago
    > since it takes a little more work, I'll assume they make fewer mistakes. To put this in context, over the four years from 2008-2012, police officers in England and Wales opened fire on 18 separate occasions, killing nine people. In a country of 55 million people, that's about 5 shooting incidents, and 2 people killed each year. http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-happy-fact-check http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-h...
tomohawk 12y ago
And the problem with police not having guns is amply demonstrated by the recent terror in France. The first police to respond were unarmed.
- dagw 12y ago
  What difference to you think it would have made if they had been armed?
  - bmelton 12y ago
    In this case, since the OP is incorrect, and they were armed, absolutely nothing.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  That doesn't appear to be true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-mourned-charlie-hebdo-paris-attack http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-m... > Merabet, who according to officials was 40, was called to the scene while on patrol with a female colleague in the neighbourhood, just in time to see the black Citroën used by the two killers heading towards the boulevard from Charlie Hebdo. > “He was on foot, and came nose to nose with the terrorists. He pulled out his weapon. It was his job, it was his duty,” said Rocco Contento, a colleague who was a union representative at the central police station for Paris’s 11th arrondissement. > Another policeman, 48-year-old Franck Brinsolaro, was killed moments earlier in the assault on Charlie Hebdo where he was responsible for the protection of its editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, one of the 11 killed in the building. A colleague said he “never had time” to pull his weapon. See also the NYPD cops killed recently - definitely armed - who were shot regardless.
  - antimagic 12y ago
    Yup, French police carry sidearms... And if that's not enough, during periods of elevated risk of a terrorist attack, you even get soldiers walking around with semi-automatic rifles in squads of three.
ecdavis 12y ago
Police in Australia carry guns and yet suspects being shot dead is rare enough that when it happens it tends to be headline news (often nationally). Perhaps part of this is that civilians in Australia are far less likely to be carrying weapons themselves, so police do not have to be as cautious as in the US. Ultimately, I don't believe the problem lies with the firearms but with the culture. As an Australian visiting or moving to the US, you will inevitably be reminded that if a US police officer pulls you over you should not get out of your car. I've had people tell me that if you do get out of the car, the officer will draw their weapon and take aim. Perhaps that is exaggerated, but to me that is an absolutely ludicrous reaction. It paints a picture of US police as having an extremely paranoid, "us vs. them" mindset. What I read in the news and have witnessed since I moved here seems to confirm that.
- base2 12y ago
  You would be amazed at the difference in reaction time if someone steps out of a car with a weapon drawn and the time it takes to bring up your own weapon. If the US police were so gun happy I would expect way more people to be shot per year/day.
  - ecdavis 12y ago
    I understand the reasoning behind the action, but it's still not justifiable. Following that same reasoning we can argue that police should approach car windows with their weapons drawn and aimed. After all, if an officer approaches a car window and sees the occupant has a gun aimed at them they won't have time to defend themselves if their sidearm is holstered. Officers have certainly been killed by vehicle occupants, so this is not some invented scenario, either. > If the US police were so gun happy I would expect way more people to be shot per year/day. There are, though. A couple of articles on the subject: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-p... http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count-of-police-homicides/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count... But if we use the FBI's number of ~400/year[0]it's still ridiculous. In the two decades between 1989-90 and 2010-11, Australian police fatally shot a total of 105 people.[1] Looking at those figures, Australia has ~0.25 fatal police shootings per million people per year. The US has ~1.25 fatal police shootings per million people per year. Five times more. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's solely due to gun control policy in the two countries. [0] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2008-2012.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c... [1] http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip34.html http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-4...
halfcat 12y ago
>unless he has a lethal weapon on him And if he does? Your argument has excluded half of the (rather important) outcomes.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

That's how it works in the UK I think. Police don't regularly carry firearms and specially trained firearms officers are called in when necessary. I think the problem with this approach in the US is that guns are way more available and way more likely to used in a crime (I don't actually have figures on this but it seems a reasonable assumption). Edit: Replaced incorrect use of 'weapons' with 'firearms'.

robin_reala 12y ago
Police carry weapons (truncheons, pepper spray, sometimes tasers), just not firearms by default.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Sorry, I was using weapon/firearm interchangeably by mistake. I meant firearm.
AlecSchueler 12y ago
What you're saying is correct, but just to be pedantic: police in Northern Ireland are armed at all times, and are allowed to be armed even while off duty.
- easytiger 12y ago
  And yet practically no police use of firearms is recorded. They have to declare each time they unholster the weapon
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Sure, I'm from NI so aware of that. It's a unique situation though and I thought it best to leave out rather than confuse my point that there are police forces that work without firearms.
  - AlecSchueler 12y ago
    I had the same thought, but felt it was best to be clear that the practice isn't unheard of in the United Kingdom.
maxlybbert 12y ago
They still make mistakes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze... ), but since it takes a little more work, I'll assume they make fewer mistakes.
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  > since it takes a little more work, I'll assume they make fewer mistakes. To put this in context, over the four years from 2008-2012, police officers in England and Wales opened fire on 18 separate occasions, killing nine people. In a country of 55 million people, that's about 5 shooting incidents, and 2 people killed each year. http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-happy-fact-check http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-h...

tomohawk 12y ago

And the problem with police not having guns is amply demonstrated by the recent terror in France. The first police to respond were unarmed.

dagw 12y ago
What difference to you think it would have made if they had been armed?
- bmelton 12y ago
  In this case, since the OP is incorrect, and they were armed, absolutely nothing.
ceejayoz 12y ago
That doesn't appear to be true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-mourned-charlie-hebdo-paris-attack http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-m... > Merabet, who according to officials was 40, was called to the scene while on patrol with a female colleague in the neighbourhood, just in time to see the black Citroën used by the two killers heading towards the boulevard from Charlie Hebdo. > “He was on foot, and came nose to nose with the terrorists. He pulled out his weapon. It was his job, it was his duty,” said Rocco Contento, a colleague who was a union representative at the central police station for Paris’s 11th arrondissement. > Another policeman, 48-year-old Franck Brinsolaro, was killed moments earlier in the assault on Charlie Hebdo where he was responsible for the protection of its editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, one of the 11 killed in the building. A colleague said he “never had time” to pull his weapon. See also the NYPD cops killed recently - definitely armed - who were shot regardless.
- antimagic 12y ago
  Yup, French police carry sidearms... And if that's not enough, during periods of elevated risk of a terrorist attack, you even get soldiers walking around with semi-automatic rifles in squads of three.

ecdavis 12y ago

Police in Australia carry guns and yet suspects being shot dead is rare enough that when it happens it tends to be headline news (often nationally). Perhaps part of this is that civilians in Australia are far less likely to be carrying weapons themselves, so police do not have to be as cautious as in the US. Ultimately, I don't believe the problem lies with the firearms but with the culture. As an Australian visiting or moving to the US, you will inevitably be reminded that if a US police officer pulls you over you should not get out of your car. I've had people tell me that if you do get out of the car, the officer will draw their weapon and take aim. Perhaps that is exaggerated, but to me that is an absolutely ludicrous reaction. It paints a picture of US police as having an extremely paranoid, "us vs. them" mindset. What I read in the news and have witnessed since I moved here seems to confirm that.

base2 12y ago
You would be amazed at the difference in reaction time if someone steps out of a car with a weapon drawn and the time it takes to bring up your own weapon. If the US police were so gun happy I would expect way more people to be shot per year/day.
- ecdavis 12y ago
  I understand the reasoning behind the action, but it's still not justifiable. Following that same reasoning we can argue that police should approach car windows with their weapons drawn and aimed. After all, if an officer approaches a car window and sees the occupant has a gun aimed at them they won't have time to defend themselves if their sidearm is holstered. Officers have certainly been killed by vehicle occupants, so this is not some invented scenario, either. > If the US police were so gun happy I would expect way more people to be shot per year/day. There are, though. A couple of articles on the subject: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-p... http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count-of-police-homicides/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count... But if we use the FBI's number of ~400/year[0]it's still ridiculous. In the two decades between 1989-90 and 2010-11, Australian police fatally shot a total of 105 people.[1] Looking at those figures, Australia has ~0.25 fatal police shootings per million people per year. The US has ~1.25 fatal police shootings per million people per year. Five times more. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's solely due to gun control policy in the two countries. [0] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2008-2012.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c... [1] http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip34.html http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-4...

halfcat 12y ago

>unless he has a lethal weapon on him And if he does? Your argument has excluded half of the (rather important) outcomes.