> Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview. This includes enforcing court orders and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations. The report actually explains these things all the while sneering at the fact that these agencies need to employ investigative and enforcement personnel as part of their core mission.

In Germany, we have solved this massive waste of money and resources by having police help other agencies. We call this "Amtshilfe". So for example if the tax office wants to raid a business in order to seize records, they request appropriate police assistance.

Basically we have three different kind of police: some "border cops" (former Bundesgrenzschutz, now Bundespolizei; these care about border protection and security on train stations/airports), a massive amount of state cops caring for literally everything from the ordinary bar fight to arresting terrorists, and in some rare cities there are "city cops" (Stadtpolizei) taking care about enforcing parking tickets and other city regulations.

But individual agencies do not have their own police powers (okay, maybe except the military - they have the Feldjäger, but these have only authority over military personnel and are rarely seen outside barracks).

One question: are there police offices dedicated to particular agencies, or do the agencies rely on "general police" with no special experience with the laws and issues of the agency? If the equivalent of a National Park Service employee finds evidence of poaching, does she call in an officer with experience arresting poachers?

And do the majority of cities not enforce parking tickets?

Here in the UK many government agencies have investigation and enforcement responsibilities and personnel, but they are 'civilians'. There just isn't any expectation that these people are ever likely to get into a situation where they might need to be armed or ever even encounter someone who is armed. If they got into a potentially dangerous situation they'd run a mile and call the police.

The situation is a bit different in some places in continental Europe. Building security at several offices I visited in Italy were armed and when I first encountered that I found that quite shocking, but firearms are generally more available and of course they have a particular problem with organized crime.

Yes, European police are more likely to be armed. Italy has its Carabinieri as a national-level armed police in addition to a separate set of regular police.

The key to UK policing's low violence rate compared to the US is, bluntly, that people care when members of the public are shot by police. It's regarded as a failure of the alternative methods. Whereas in the US people go beyond merely defending the police into practically cheering the street execution of a "criminal".

Also strict gun control. It's the single most effective population-scale de-escalation technique.

The UK has plenty of police violence -- a (disappointingly) high rate of tasering for compliance (where previously we'd see a bit of truncheon action). We just don't kill 'em because they're not going to be killing us.

Department of Homeland Security is equivalent to Carabinieri.

Even MI5 get the police to actually make arrests - there are a few other organisations are armed the Nuke police and I suspect MI5 and MI6 must have PPW.

>I suspect MI5 and MI6 must have PPW

I very much doubt it, they're civilians. Why would they need to be armed?

> and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations.

This just leads to Alcohol Beverage Commission "agents" pulling guns on a young woman buying a crate of water.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/uva-girl-water-bee...

It's fucking stupid for a gang of out of uniform people to approach her and pull guns, and then charge her when she panics.

Take the guns off those people. Give the guns to police. Give the police rigorous training to use the guns, but also a lot more training in de-escalation.

The fact is those girls could have had guns in their purses and it's entirely plausible that if so one of them might have reached for it in order to exercise her constitutional right to defend herself and 'stand her ground'. In a heavily armed society, the rational solution is that all government officials that might ever have to challenge the public need to be armed and assume hostile intent at all times. Hence pulling guns on kids buying water is the expected result. It's all for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

That's not at all the case. I live in very "red" state in the US where firearm ownership and concealed carry rates are among the highest in the nation. Law enforcement officials are more polite and friendly here than they have been in any other part of the country that I have lived including NYC and the Bay Area. Unfortunately, there appears to be little correlation between the degree of aggression shown by law enforcement and the likelihood that they will face armed resistance.

> those girls could have had guns in their purses

So could I. And with the right equipment pigs might fly.

But really how likely is it?

I suspect that the comment from simonh may have contained a degree of sarcasm.

True, but that particular part of it was written with an absolutely straight face. There could have been a gun in the car, in the glove compartment, etc. In an entire career as an enforcement officer, there's a real chance at some point you will encounter a situation like that. In which case, rationally you have to treat every situation like that. My comment was sarcastic to a point, but these are the real actual, even necessary consequences of near ubiquitous access to guns in a society.

I remember seeing a clip of a cop walking up to a car only to get a shotgun unloaded into him as he reached the window to ask for license etc.

Next time he does a traffic stop you can bet he's going to be humourless and aggressive in making sure that the drivers hands are visible - probably with his hand on his weapon. I expect most of the colleagues who spoke to him would also let this influence their attitude.

Being from the UK probably helps - but I have tremendous sympathy for anyone policing under those conditions and how hard it must be to maintain balance.

does the ubiquity of guns among the public inspire you to conduct yourself to a high standard during your job?

No, because I live in the UK. I conduct my self to a high standard because it's the right thing to do.

Well... in the past week, I've been in that particular shopping center four times that I can recall. All four of those times I was armed.

I'd say the odds a random person on the street in Charlottesville, VA is legally armed is probably 3-5%, given the number of CHPs issued by the state.

It's also interesting to note that no license or permit is required in Virginia to carry a loaded handgun in the glovebox of your vehicle.

>Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview.

The report states spending jumped 106% from 55 million to 106 million over the period. I would like to know what benefit was garnered from doubling spending on arming these agencies with deadly weapons (and paintball guns, apparently).

> paintball guns,

Paintball guns are a less lethal weapon used by both border control agents and by animal control agencies.

2011: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/04/border-patrol-re...

http://www.nelsonpaintball.com/animal-control/

I'm not sure how many paintball guns you get for $300,000.

The benefit is hopefully fewer incidents like this where US border agents shot across the border, killing a Mexican child in Mexico. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/12/us-border-patrol-age... (Throwing rocks at people is obviously illegal and needs to be dealt with. I struggle to understand why extra judicial killing is an appropriate punishment for this crime.)

I grew up playing paintball. They're just liquid balls in a thin plastic. With a jacket on they won't bother you too much. At 50 ft the rental guns will start to stop breaking, especially on soft clothing. At 100ft the best guns you can buy will start to stop breaking even on bare skin. I have a hard time imagining them being effective outside of a very small set of circumstances.

You can shoot mace filled paintballs though. Releases a cloud of pepperspray on contact.

As others have said, paintball guns are use to dispense pepperballs (mace filled paintballs), amongst other Less than lethal materials

In addition to the aforementioned less lethal use case, paintball guns are also a training tool for police forces

I find the context in this report to be thorough enough to understand that a fair amount of the money being spent is entirely necessary. I'm intimately familiar with the costs of maintaining and upgrading military equipment and the costs of training (10 year USMC Box Kicker here). The amount of rounds a single person has to go through in order to stay sharp is insane.

However... The context in this report is also enough to highlight the obvious misspending and mistakes in reporting as well. The HHS being unable to account for ~6 million dollars labeled as military spending is scary. For 6 million dollars, someone could obtain some pretty nasty stuff. There are several more things that don't add up as well... If you look up the number of personnel authorized to carry firearms, and graph that against the number of rounds purchased, it's a fairly linear graph... Except for a few agencies, who are spending millions of dollars each year on ammo for a very small number of agents. It doesn't add up, and it's likely becoming pocket change for some Dick or Jane who's living high off of your tax dollars.

Reports like this are important because they take a pessimistic look at a budget (which is how you should ALWAYS look at a budget in business), and the inconsistencies rise to the top where we can all see them.

Regarding their contention that research grants to Ivy League schools are subsidies, aren't they exactly that? Don't get me wrong, those are definitely the kind of subsidies I think the government should be providing, but what is wrong with labeling them as such?

in the UK, when government agencies need to enforce a law under their purview, they defer to the court system and bring in a public prosecutor. This seems more sensible to me.

The public prosecutor performs arrests?

(Dang it.)

it's quite common to see gangs of roving lawyers hunting for their next takedown - there was a whole David Attenborough series on it.