It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police.
The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence. We dress it up today and make it seem all noble, and selectively forget all the torture at Abu Ghraib, drop weapons [1], the famous song about the "Little Haji Girl," .. and the list goes on.
The military get away with much more murder and torture than police. Many people I knew who came back from Iraq hate Iraqis; they have to justify their hatred because they've killed so many of them.
In the words of Bill Hicks, "I've been watching all these Congressional hearings and all these military guys and all the pundits going, "The esprit de corps will be affected, and we are such a mora …" Excuse me, but aren't you all a bunch of fucking hired killers? Shut up! You are thugs, and when we need you to go blow the fuck out of a nation of little brown people, we'll let you know."
>The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence(...)
But the police are a part of the state's monopoly on violence as well - they're the ones who commit the violence on behalf of the state, and the ones whose violence the state legitimizes.
Are you suggesting that there's a better solution to handling conflict than relegating the use of violence to the state? If so, what's that solution?
I understand the U.N. Laws of War, official terms of engagement, and military law don't talk in terms of risk percentages, but practically that's the calculation each soldier must make. We have to be careful of how much saintliness we ask of policemen (and soldiers) else we won't be able to hire more than a handful.
Because time and again when you look at SWAT tactics or other situations where a cop kills someone, they were being pre-emptive. They were taking no risk at all of being hurt or killed. They pulled the trigger at the first ambiguous sign of threat, resistance, or something going wrong. They've created and valorized a mindset of taking no risk, of making sure they go home at night, of winning every encounter that always has death lurking somewhere.
They've made cops chickenshit, is what they've done. Some of that is internal cop culture, "warrior cop" mentality, etc. Some of that is us having built up a lot of drama around policing and police deaths making us all think that it's a terribly dangerous job. And some of it is just a refusal to hold police accountable for mistakes, which makes erring on the side of a dead civilian preferable.
These cops have to be willing to consider their lives less important that everyone else's. Bullshit.
Yes plenty of people go into the military. For myself it was because I could not get a better job. Was I willing to die for my country, yes, but I sure as hell wasn't of the opinion I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to make sure I wasn't.
I was just reading the other thread on here about the original story. The police got a proper doing on it.
I bet myself before clicking the link for this one "I bet no one is speaking about the linked story just slagging the polic." Correct.
Why is no one commenting on what this idiot did?
Meanwhile, the rest of us don't get any cushy pensions or any of forms of guaranteed stable government benefits like police do.
Not trying to say they should consider themselves "less-than", more that they should be fucking servants.
Police aren't the point! They are a necessary fixture to enable the real point- SAFE, LIVE CITIZENS.
The police are is a game of heads they lose tails they don't win; what ever they do.
No one wants to hear about the lives they save everyday, no one cares about when a cop is injured or killed doing their job; they deserved it right.
It's one of the toughest jobs you can do; and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Fact, society wouldn't function without the police. Fact if I was a police in America there is no way I wouldnt be armed.
All your bullshit about putting your life on the line is just psyching yourself up to shoot people. Cops don't put their life on the line. They sometimes get killed by people for no reason, but in smaller numbers than civilians get killed by people with guns for no reason. All your heroic language does is justify cops shooting innocents because they're scared.
Love to see the stats on that. Either way you wouldn't get me doing a cops job in America without a gun, for obvious reasons.
>All your bullshit about putting your life on the line is just psyching yourself up to shoot people. Cops don't put their life on the line. They sometimes get killed by people for no reason, but in smaller numbers than civilians get killed by people with guns for no reason. All your heroic language does is justify cops shooting innocents because they're scared.
Not really worth a response seeing as how this is just trolling, but I can guarantee 2 things that you'll not like hearing because you're obviously convinced all cops are just bad men in uniforms but, 1 yes cops do put their lives on the line, 2 my supposed "bullshit" about putting my life on the line is just not psyching myself up to shoot people. Sorry to disappoint you but you're speaking shite.
On the other hand, law enforcement is less dangerous than agriculture, transportation, or "grounds maintenance" (!) (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm)
Of course cops don't put their lives on the line. Now let's all slag off those cops, because let's face it they deserved what happened to them didn't they!
For some people, those are worth the potential of death, where as the LEO compensation isn't.
Lastly, there is a large group of people who enlist due to patriotic beliefs (i.e. "Doing your duty"/"Serving your country"). I don't see that same type of patriotism towards local LEO organizations.
Meanwhile, cops are paid north of $50k/yr; they get to go home to their families every night, and compared to IED-laden roads and AK-47s, their risks are very minor.
Also, saying the military pays for room and board is like saying prison pays for room and board; it’s not exactly the room and board you would choose, and you’re not allowed to just leave when you choose.
Our civilization is so lacking in the honorable stoicism which would serve these personnel so well.
As bad as it was, it probably wasn’t the worst case.
In that case, it's not as bad as if it was a secret ISIS compound and one of the bad guys set off a bomb that blew up the block. That's worse than your worst case. But notice how this adds no value to the discussion.
I disagree. No one should be prepared to die while working a job, a job that one will have all his life.
Every officer used to know this. Maybe less so today, when police work is an attractive option for violent people to let loose on civilians with legal sanction. But that's a separate problem from the mentality of duty and sacrifice.
Of course, this is just an anecdotal, singular data point, but it strongly accords with the sense I get watching videos of police shootings that many if not most police officers today are in fact trained to put their safety and the safety of their fellow officers above that of civilians.
This is exactly the problem, and darkly colors mottos such as ‘To protect and serve’
It is a collection of dashcam/bodycam videos of US police involved in some kind of shooting/assault. They are not edited down to fit a news report so videos usually last 10-30 minutes. Some show cops stealing money/drug from suspects and US media actually showed such clips in news reports. But lots of the videos show actual circumstances leading up to shooting by police. Some clips show cops getting shot at by suspects. And even some getting killed. I have a whole new perspective on cops after watching the videos.
I have a relative who was arrested (due to his own fault) and got roughed up by police and he HATES cops. And I kinda used to shared his sentiment.
But after watching the clips on the channel, I feel somewhat less animosity.
When scums of earth are around, most of us have a choice of moving away. But these cops don't have the choice.
Why wouldn't they? They do have a choice. Of course it's more complicated than simply saying that, but it's ridiculous to suggest a cop doesn't have a choice in where they work or live or even the field in which they work. Being a cop is not compulsory and even offers more opportunities for movement than many other professions.
I was actually watching a bunch of videos on this very channel the day before last. And I totally agree with your characterization of it. It did make me more sympathetic to cops as individual people with hard jobs, seeing all the crazy bullshit people put cops through on a daily basis.
But it doesn't negate my critique that there's a systematic flaw in the way police are trained. I don't hold the individual cops to blame for acting as they've been trained. but in watching a lot of the videos I get the sense that because of the warrior mentality of the cop, they simply cannot allow themselves to opt for the de-escalatory path, because they think failing to dominate a situation will put themselves at risk. Which may be true in many of the situations!
But why is this? Why are there criminals who are willing to initiate gun violence against police, despite the overwhelmingly bad odds against that ending well for them?
It's a complex question, but I suspect one significant factor is because they have also been trained indirectly by the warrior mentality of other police they've encountered or observed. I think it's fair to say almost all people who pull guns on cops are not having their first brush with the law. They know that once a encounter with a police officer becomes adversarial, the only possible outcomes are: suspect in custody, suspect dead, or suspect escaped by incapacitating the officer. People hate to lose control, and being seconds away from indefinite, total loss of control over your life on the shoulder of a road creates a situation quite analogous to the first strike problem in nuclear strategy. Except unlike in potential nuclear conflicts, the initial deployment of force is a very common eventuality so the perceived need for counterforce is that much higher.
Now admittedly, the warrior mentality isn't the root cause of this dynamic - criminals on the run would still have a first strike incentive during encounters with police, but the presence of a warrior officer ratchets up the potential for escalation nonetheless, because the criminal is now credibly worried about losing their life in addition to losing their freedom.
I don't know where to go with this, but, the point I wanted to make is we can both maintain respect for police as individuals and critique the aspects of police institutional culture that exacerbate these problems.
However, this does not justify any of the collateral damage to the ones who are innocent - the scales of justice are not a probability distribution! The entire point of the rule of law is to have a clear dividing line between the acceptable and the unacceptable - every innocent person assaulted by the police is a victim of a freshly-committed crime, and should be entitled to (at the very least) civil recompense.
In the case of this SWAT call, the cops had plenty of time to secure their own safety and to wait out the hostage taker. First and foremost they did not even confirm what the situation was before rushing to action. And now the citizen is dead.
> stop and frisk statistics in NYC indicate the opposite. Besides, why does that even matter? Even if most alleged perps are guilty of something, that "something" isn't usually a violent crime, it's a traffic violation or public drinking or selling pot or a minor domestic disturbance
Without refuting either of these points, I stand by the intuition of my comment. Stop and frisk seems more like an exception that proves the rule, showing just how bad the narrative of "good guys" "inspecting subjects" has gotten.
> That comes from the attitude that asserting control over the situation is more important than protecting and serving the citizenry as the cop was hired to do
I totally agree - focusing on their desire for control, and the injustice committed when they demand that control over an innocent person, is a good way of analyzing it.
> the case of this SWAT call, the cops had plenty of time to secure their own safety and to wait out the hostage taker. First and foremost they did not even confirm
IMHO, the "in-situation" framing is heading down the wrong path. Primarily worrying about what the police department policy is, how much of a paid staycation a murderer will get, etc is buying into the corrupt idea that cops aren't subject to the laws themselves. Under the actual rule of law, murderers go to prison no matter what costume they wore. And if policy department policy encouraged/defended the murder, we call that conspiracy.
You realize that judging acts is not within their domain and sphere of interest, right?
Also, I’d love to see your reference citation(s) to back up this statement.
Wat? Judging acts is in the "domain and sphere of interest" of any person.
Please note (if you can avoid shooting from the hip) that I'm making this point to criticize police overreach - even a perfectly "clean slate" cop with no peer pressure will develop a bias towards thinking of everybody as a criminal! Similarly, a cop that lives in a White community and works in a Black neighborhood is going to find it awfully hard to not develop a bias of thinking Black people are more likely to be dangerous. (and, in case it's not clear, vice-versa)
If you cannot bear to entertain thoughts like the above, then you really aren't interested in analyzing the problem. Because all of the "training" in the world isn't going to counteract a bias that is reinforced every single day!
What is needed are actual real incentives to not murder people, but fortunately this is a pretty old problem. Apart from responding to a rare overt attack (eg aiming a gun or charging the cop), any cop that shoots someone is themselves committing a crime (somewhere between voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder) - undermining that very "law and order" that police purport to uphold! The routine and casual corruption that allows these crimes to go unpunished needs to be rooted out.
Perhaps my experiences were exceptional examples and everywhere else across the United States, a majority of LE interactions are between officers and “guilty” people, but that’s not what I saw.
I’m open to the possibility, of course, but I’d still like to see a citation backing up the statement I was responding to.
Many of the early US “professional” forces were essentially violent ethnic gangs given official sanction to combat other violent ethnic gangs; the present violent condition is more a result of the fact that that culture had continued to shape US policing than some kind of recent deviation from historical police culture; it's more visible because of changes in media and some pro-transparency reforms, not because the actual behavior is worse.
If anything, the recent trend has been for many institutions to try to correct some of the long-standing cultural problems, but that's a long, slow process facing internal and external resistance.
But these days such jobs require much studying/preparation/luck.
And that is usually when an active war is going on.
Even when an active war is on, those in charge have learned to limit the length of time a soldier spends in warzone to 1 year. Like US did in Vietnam war.
For cop in certain areas, they are exposed to loving life/limb any day. It may happen only once a year or just a few years. But still, I wouldn't say one can be a cop only if you are willing to lose own life.
Soldiers can easily get a lot more than one year of combat time. How many full time soldiers only do a single tour in Iraq or Afghanistan?
The stats show policing isn't that dangerous. Most cops never need to draw their weapons. If you want to see a dangerous job look at crab fishing.
But for US cops, any chance encounter on the street can be deadly. And that lasts for their entire career.
I have trouble with agreeing with someone who says that a cop should be ready to give up life during their whole career of 30 + years.
Meanwhile SWAT details (particularly in medium sized cities with more toys than mandatory training) are going to consistently attract the worst of the so called "bad apples" from the greater ranks of police. Individuals that joined up specifically because the rough and tumble stuff appealed to them.
This is absolutely false. It may have been true in Vietnam, but that has to do more with there being a near infinite source of soldiers (the draft) and also an insane amount of soldiers being killed an maimed and unable to take a 2nd term.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, I knew people who were serving five or six tours.
How often do these calls turn out to be actually dangerous? One in a dozen? A hundred?
Should cops wearing body armor use sniper rifles to shoot someone on their porch several hundred feet away just on the off chance they might have a pistol in their waistband?
I have yet to injure myself; in large part I ascribe this to the fact that I always think and think again about what I am about to do, and how it may conceivably put me at risk, then take the required measures to eliminate that risk.
However, more importantly - I have also yet to have anybody else injured on my watch. Why? Because I am not only concerned about my own safety, but also that of anybody who are, or may possibly come, within the blast radius in case something goes pear-shaped.
I would expect police officers to do the same - though granted, most of the time they have to make their decisions much faster (which makes it even more important to think things through beforehand - and, hopefully, come up with alternatives to "Shoot at anything you are not 100% certain is harmless, then sort out the details after the gunsmoke clears."
Now, I appreciate that my circumstances are not directly comparable to that of a police officer responding to an emergency call; however, the basic methodology should be applicable in both cases.
Police officers are granted a monopoly on applying force on the civilian population; with that privilege comes great responsibility to use that privilege sparingly and proportionate to the situation they are sent to resolve.
I do not expect the police to disarm completely - that wouldn't be realistic - but as a member of the public I do expect them to show restraint and train -and aim for- non-lethal outcomes in encounters with the public. They have, after all, taken an oath to serve us. I hardly think the best way of serving is to assume civilians are hostile until proven otherwise.
There is a fundamental difference between military tactics/actions and law enforcement. It seems that over the past 4-5 decades, we've allowed the lines to be blurred in exchange for a false sense of security and safety.
I don’t agree with this. I think they are preparing for particular forms of the worst case, and its causing these incidents.
Is killing innocent civilians the worst case? This outcome isn’t being considered.
No, they're literally taught that protecting their lives and the lives of their fellow officers is their top priority. They're taught by the 'warrior mindset' not to treat civilians like, well, civilians, but instead like potential enemy combatants.
Sure, they're mitigating the personal risks they endure on the job, but they're doing so at the cost of increasing the risk of harm and death to everyone they encounter.
That's what makes this so much worse - the guy who got killed never knew why the cops were there, which is presumably why he was confused and made the mistake that killed him. He died because he was innocent.
Maybe it's just really hard to train for this situation?
Regardless, we know that police, with very few exceptions, right across the world, are trained to respond with escalating violence.
That's not a true premise in the vast majority of cases that involve SWAT raids.
What you are asking them to be is super human, indeed even better than a computer could in the same situation. No amount of "proper training" or "discipline" can prepare you to make perfect decisions based on imperfect data (your sensory perception, plus all the data that isn't present such as must be read from the mind of the suspect). Oh and add to this the stress that if you screw up, one of the following is likely:
1. You get killed
2. You wrongly kill and end up in prison
A different approach is needed. I'm not sure what that is, but asking/requiring certain humans to be super human is a sure way to fail.
I'd love to hear an actual solution or alternative if you have one. But the U.S isn't a special snowflake. It should take a leaf from other countries like Germany, England and France and foster a strong culture of policing by consent rather than the bullshit we have right now.
Also when was the last time an American white law enforcement agent was imprisoned for discharging his or her weapon on an unarmed suspect?
So it does happen that a cop (not sure if white cops get convicted less than black cops) goes to jail for shooting people.
That wasn't an answer and it is well reasoned. Saying "nuh uh" as a red herring to put forth what excuses you believe, frankly, is not compelling.
[1]: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/armed-epa-agents-...
The next substantive, impartial article from Fox News about the EPA will be the first one I've seen.
You seem quite confident.
Americans have 101 guns per 100 citizens. Finns have 34.2 guns per 100 citizens. Icelanders have 30.3 guns per 100 citizens.
America has 110x the murder rate than Finland has. America has 13,000x the murder rate Iceland has.
Whatever the cause is, 3x the guns ≠ 110x the murder rate (or 13,000x the murder rate).
A more interesting comparison might be to examine countries with similar murder rates to the U.S., regardless of arbitrary "developing or not developing" boxes, and ask what the two countries have in common. For instance, countries with similar murder rates to the U.S. include:
• Burundi (1.2 guns per 100 residents)
• Cuba (4.8 guns per 100 residents)
• Kazakhstan (1.3 guns per 100 residents)
• Kyrgyzstan (0.9 guns per 100 residents)
• Latvia (19 guns per 100 residents)
• Niger (0.7 guns per 100 residents)
• Rwanda (0.6 guns per 100 residents)
• Somalia (9.1 guns per 100 residents)
• Turkey (12.5 guns per 100 residents)
• Turkmenistan (3.8 guns per 100 residents)
• Ukraine (6.6 guns per 100 residents)
What about the U.S. makes it more like these countries, murder-rate-wise, than more developed countries with higher gun ownership, like Finland or Iceland (both of which have far and away higher gun ownership than all the countries on that list)?
We know it's not guns. So what's the cause?
You misspelled “I want to believe it’s not guns.”
I am from Ukraine originally. Poverty is the reason there. So yeah let’s have that proper safety net instead.
But when we are talking about this, let’s break it down a bit between different types of violence where guns are used: police shooting suspects, gang violence, run of the mill murder, and acts of terrorism. You don’t believe that the police are shooting suspects because the officers are poor, do you? Or that the Vegas shooter was poor? Or the Sandy Hook one? Gang violence is a result of poverty, but terror attacks (the US likes to call these mass shootings when the suspect is white and/or Christian), are not.
I think it is time to repeal the second amendment. It clearly failed to create an organized militia that could stand up to an oppressive government. The US police force alone is enough to suppress any rebellion by the civilians, and if aided by the military, no militia could stand up to it. You can have gun ownership without the second amendment. Individual laws could grant access to weapons. But it is time to switch from a loophole that lets us have all the guns unless specifically disallowed by a law to a denied first, allowed second system.
Do I hear you ask about all the criminals that would keep their guns anyways, and only the law abiding citizens would be left unarmed? I will buy that argument the day it’s applied across the board to drugs and abortions.
By merely being engaged by a police officer, you’re dead.
Not an American. Canadian here. I actually wish we had American gun laws, even with their consequences.
Edit: and funnily enough the above scenario doesn’t happen in the developed world, except in the US, where it happens multiple times a year. Here we don’t tolerate things like weed, or abortions, or refugees because the societal price for those is too high, but mass child murder is cool because otherwise how would we prove our manliness?
Everybody does. Let's not be disingenuous, though: the chances one of our children dies from a gunshot wound at school is incredibly small.
By my counts, 4 students have been killed at school shootings this year. 4 students out of ~50 million kids at over 130,00 schools. Consider also there are over 350 million firearms in the US.
People only care about it because of _guns_.
<soapbox>
Nobody seems to care much about the ~30,000 firearm deaths in the US each year.
They don't care that 2/3 of them are suicides, usually of middle-aged men.
They don't care that most of the remainder are usually in poor areas (often because of the US' long history of racism) and often gang-related.
They only care about the sensational (and very tragic) 0.0001% of deaths.
It annoys me to no end because it's proof they don't care about gun deaths. No, they just care about tear-jerking cable news stories. It's gross and disingenuous.
</soapbox>
And I never said anything about not caring about other gun deaths. I don’t have a magical scale to weigh lives, and say which gun deaths are more meaningful objectively, but my solution to most of these is exactly the same: repeal the second amendment. Don’t let suicidal middle aged men buy guns. Don’t let legally owned guns become illegally owned guns. Don’t pawn them, privately sell them, hide them, find them, etc. Don’t put them in the hands of 12 year olds, or 50 year olds. What does seem true to me is that you almost never see a story where the gun made a difference and a life was saved. The NRA loooooves to talk about self defense the reason to sacrifice the poor, the defenseless, and the sick every damn year. Yet there is no damn evidence for this.
Also yes sure you can say schools are “safe” because it might not happen at yours. Add churches, malls, movie theaters, concerts, etc. and the picture gets a lot bleaker.
This experiment with guns has clearly failed. Arming a bunch of civilians and glorifying gun culture to the point of fetishism turns out leads to a not insignificant amount of death, a good chunk of which is innocent bystanders. So we can spend another year or ten or 100 pretending that this is a good idea or we can repeal the second amendment and start over. I am willing to bet that mayhem and pandemonium won’t happen and instead we would learn that not having a bunch of people armed to the teeth is a good idea.
This is blatantly incorrect. From the Violence Policy Center:
"Using the NCVS numbers, for the three-year period 2012 through 2014, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 263,500."[0]
In other words, about 87,000 defensive uses of a firearm per year. This is up from the VPC's previous numbers, which totaled ~67,000[1].
> Also yes sure you can say schools are “safe” because it might not happen at yours.
They're "safe" because 4 deaths out of 50 million is safe. Similarly so with the other venues.
I will say, though, I respect your position on gun control much more than the folks who think we'll solve our gun death issue by banning characteristics of firearms (i.e., "assault weapon" bans).
In other words, personal firearms made very little difference in preventing crime. "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is therefore at best a stretch.
I will grant you that the media does sensationalize mass shootings over someone defending themselves from a criminal. Sensationalizing mass shootings is possibly one of the reasons there are so many of them. I am not a huge fan of Malcom Gladwell, but he did describe school shootings specifically as spreading in an epidemic-like fashion: after Columbine they were given so much attention that it sort of self-perpetuated. But the fact remains that if I am being mugged in a dark alley, I am most likely safer if I simply hand over my wallet and phone, then cancel my credit cards when I get home, than if I try to resist.
> I will say, though, I respect your position on gun control much more than the folks who think we'll solve our gun death issue by banning characteristics of firearms (i.e., "assault weapon" bans).
I appreciate that. I don't believe that the problem is scary looking rifles. The problem is first and foremost hand guns which are responsible for most firearm-related deaths. At the same time, mass shootings are a US-specific problem that I do believe comes from two sources: easy access to firearms AND fetishizing guns. As a society we can't change the latter. By definition it's the very rare outliers who go on mass killing sprees. You can't just teach them to not do it. So the solution is to control the former: gun control. You can take incremental measures like stricter background checks, but people will still slip by that. That's the thing about a sociopath: they know exactly how to get around rules and restrictions. But I am in favor of just starting over: repeal the second amendment, remove as many guns as possible from the society, bring that 101 guns per 100 people down to 1.1 guns per 100 people. Then see if there is an actual need to introduce them back into society. My guess: you won't see a strong need beyond the cries of a few enthusiasts.
I also support the hunting exception. I am not a hunter myself, but I know that lots of people derive their livelihood from it. But weapons used for hunting are significantly different than you'd use for self defense. You don't need a huge quick reload magazine to take down a deer for example, because deer by their nature will bolt shortly after hearing the first shot. You won't be able to unload into one unless you are spot lighting the. You can make hand guns used for hunting boar or bear highly reflective orange. Again, quick reload is likely not necessary for these guns.
I looked into bow hunting for a bit, and the funny thing is that the advice I got in one of the classes was to always zip tie your bowstrings when leaving the hunting area so that if a rangers stops you, you can show that you aren't actively using your bow. But you can carry a loaded pistol with the safety off at your hip while doing this and the ranger can't do a thing about it because the pistol is protected by the second amendment. A bit ironic, I think.
</soap-box>
I'm not sure how you square
> the outcomes of such resistance have not been compiled to see if offering resistance using a firearm made things better or worse for the victim.
and
> But the fact remains that if I am being mugged in a dark alley, I am most likely safer if I simply hand over my wallet and phone...than if I try to resist.
> So the solution is to control the former: gun control.
I have some ideas for this :-) It's another pet-peeve of mine: lots of gun control is never run by gun owners first. While there's an obvious conflict of interest, it also means those implementing it lack a whole lot of context and insight that only gun owners can provide.
> But weapons used for hunting are significantly different than you'd use for self defense.
Sorta. A shotgun used for hunting would make a fine home defense firearm. AR-15s can be used just fine for hunting and home defense. Although, a deer hunting rifle (bolt action, scope, etc.) probably wouldn't be a great choice. (Additionally, usually hunters are limited to 3 cartridges in their rifle, but that wouldn't make much sense for home defense.)
> the advice I got in one of the classes was to always zip tie your bowstrings when leaving the hunting area so that if a rangers stops you, you can show that you aren't actively using your bow.
I wonder if this is similar to how it's illegal to have loaded long guns inside vehicles (in most states...)
I see your point about how gun experts, which could also include gun owners, should at least be included in deciding policy. As a counter example I will posit that gun owners have failed to put forth any meaningful policy changes. The second amendment still failed to created a well regulated militia, gun deaths are still rampant, mass shootings are still a mostly US problem in the developed world, and the NRA which is supported by most gun owners still is pushing for less gun control.
I think most reasonable people will agree that things like hunting can be treated separately from other uses of firearms by civilians. If there is more nuance to this, we can talk about that. But gun control debate often gets lost in nuance. Who cares about bump stocks when you can buy the AR-15 to attach it to without doing many or any background checks? Who cares about the rate of fire or magazine size when you can go to your pawn shop, buy a 22 and blow your brains out in the parking lot? Repeal the second amendment, give a 30 year cooling off period, then start with new legislation, with data from the past 30 years.
> You say 60k deaths from guns is bad
Well, 30k. And I'm not saying the 4 deaths are okay, I'm saying it's not an epidemic and, statistically, schools are safe. But, I'm still not sure how that part of your comment logically proves much.
> As a counter example I will posit that gun owners have failed to put forth any meaningful policy changes...pushing for less control.
I'd suggest that gun owners have always had to play catch-up. For example, consider the '94 AWB. It was rammed through as a halfway, last-minute measure that pitted gun owners against each other and has left a bad taste in many of their mouths. The general feeling is if they give an inch, "the other side" will take a mile. It's evident if you compare and contrast the positions groups like GOA and NRA take on bills.
I'd also posit that defense of one's self _from_ the state is an underlying reason for the 2nd amendment. Considering the massive (over 350 million) number of firearms in the US and entrenched gun culture, I'm of the opinion the amendment is fine in that respect.
> I think most reasonable people will agree that things like hunting can be treated separately from other uses of firearms by civilians.
As it should. I think where we disagree is on the type and scope of difference.
> But gun control debate often gets lost in nuance. Who cares about bump stocks when you can buy the AR-15...[or] buy a 22 and blow your brains out in the parking lot?
Granted, an AR-15 is not necessarily more dangerous than "any old rifle." It's simply a platform that encompasses different calibers, gas systems, etc. But, good gun control could help stymie sales to prohibited persons. Is it any better, though, if instead of purchasing a $200 pawn shop gun the person hangs himself? When I had a family member dealing with that issue we were told that, essentially, those who _want_ to commit suicide _will_. Have we achieved much if we've simply caused those people to change methods?
Anyway, as an aside, I appreciate the dialogue. It's not too often this topic can be discussed without name calling and such or without degrading into "muh rights" versus "think of the children."
Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one.
As far as the second amendment, yes there are a lot of guns in this country. But, I still posit that it failed:
1. We don’t have a well regulated militia. We have a bunch of individuals, often times with poor training.
2. The individual gun owners are not doing anything to keep the State free. There have been no instances where there was even an attempt to form the well regulated militia it talks about.
3. Even if a major threat to the State showed up, within or without, in a modern world hand guns and semi automatic rifles would not stand up to modern military tech. That fight is over before it starts.
Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety, hunting, or anything like that. It basically says that for the purposes of having a civil defense force, individuals can own guns. So in my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership.
As for suicide stuff, I am not sure if you are familiar with some of the stats around it, but basically women are more likely to attempt suicide but men have a higher rate of success. The difference is that men tend to use more lethal methods, often times hand guns. In HN terms, guns reduce friction. Of course if someone is determined to commit suicide, they will. But the other thing is that most people are not. They will go through the steps but also look for an off ramp as they do. And the longer the steps, the more chance they have to change their mind. Suicide is a very complex issue with a large number of underlying causes, but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it.
Lastly, as for mass shootings, I would say that schools were safer in 2017 vs 2016, etc. but they aren’t at an acceptable level of safety in absolute terms. As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. Also, check this out http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.....
I also appreciate the dialogue. If only this had any real world effect :)
How so? Also, keep in mind the _entire_ gun lobby spends less than Microsoft does each year. It's pitifully small compared to many other lobbying groups.
> Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one.
Yeah. Although I don't recall bringing him up. :-)
> 1, 2, and 3
1. Sure, perhaps not "well-regulated" (whatever that means), but see #2
2. They are, because see #3
3. Not really. Consider the case of the middle east: two super powers—Russia in the late 70s/80s and the US ever since—haven't been able to "win" their wars in that area for the last 40 or so years. Why? Because ultimately you still need boots on the ground physically controlling the area. Sure, we could use our military prowess to turn the entire thing into a sea of glass, there's _zero_ benefit to that. Which is why we've lost over 4,000 soldiers instead of just bombing the place and calling it good.
Now consider if the US government turned on its citizens or if the US were attacked by another state. You'd end up with the same thing as the middle east, except for the US has many more firearms and, in case #1, the US government would be fractured: plenty of soldiers and police would not want to take the government's side. That's what plenty of people think about wrt "militia."
> Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety...my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership.
This is part of the long debate about the 2nd amendment. You can reach different conclusions depending on how you interpret it. When it was written, firearm ownership was simply an assumed right. People owned guns and could protect themselves with them. Depending on how you parse the 2nd amendment's text you can reach different conclusions. That one comma could make a world of difference (historical details about gun ownership notwithstanding).
> but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it.
And so it seems the question is then: are there better ways that don't trample gun rights, and if not, is losing the gun rights worth the extra time it buys some individuals?
(As an aside, I'm not incredibly familiar with suicide, I just know what I was told by doctors when I had a close family member "go through" it, for lack of a better term.)
> As a citizen I want my schools safer than this.
I do too, but at 4 per 50 million (1 per 12.5 million) I'd consider it safer for my kids to attend school than, say, swim in pools or drive a car—both of which are considered routine and "safe" events.
Interesting link! I've always wondered what would happen to the rates of mass killings and such (the "high profile" incidents) if we'd focus on it less. It seems the 24/7 news stories only seem to inflame tensions and normalize it, increasing the propensity of it happening again and spreading fear of what is an otherwise rare occurrence (see: right-wing folk and terrorist attacks).
> If only this had any real world effect :)
We can dream, huh?
And herein lies the crux. We are staking up to 30k lives a year on a comma. Also, historical context is important in that when the second amendment was written, a group of people with muskets could take on a government force. That's not the case anymore. Police now drive tanks and come at you wearing body armor. I agree that if there was a full scale uprising, with say all the liberals arming themselves to the teeth and going up against Trump's administration in a rebellion, the police and military might be at best divided on the issue. But still, there is no well regulated militia that currently exists.
So my point is that why not re-write the damn thing, taking into account modern tech and modern way of life? The second amendment is held as nearly holy by some, but at one point it was just written down on paper by a few people. It's not exactly a stellar piece of legislature that is above all scrutiny and reproach.
Well, 2/3 of those might be taken with other (possibly "worse," like suicide by cop or ODing) means. But, regardless. I understand what you mean.
> That's not the case anymore.
Sure it is, because ...
> Police now drive tanks and come at you wearing body armor.
... anybody can buy body armor. Hell, you can even own tanks in the US. And, like we've seen with the middle east, a guerilla group doesn't need body armor and tanks to stall and protect themselves from the world's largest super power.
> So my point is that why not re-write the damn thing, taking into account modern tech and modern way of life? The second amendment is held as nearly holy by some, but at one point it was just written down on paper by a few people. It's not exactly a stellar piece of legislature that is above all scrutiny and reproach.
To me, that sorta defeats the entire purpose of the US experiment. I believe a lot of our successes have to do with how seriously we take the constitution. Sure, we've trampled over it from time-to-time (e.g., slavery, women's suffrage, etc.) but a lot of the ideas that went into it are just as prevalent in the US as they were 240-some years ago. In fact, some of those ideas have helped the least fortunate and minority groups. Minor edits are one thing, but complete rewrites usually don't go as planned. And having 240-some years of history simply makes parts of it that much stronger. Unfortunately, humans are more complicated than software. :-)
Side note: I'm checking out your family fortune app. It should work fine for just one person, right?
As far as the constitution goes, I do think the rest of it is rather workable. Except the second amendment. It is the single most vaguely worded and most misapplied portion of it. It’s like if you wrote a piece of code that ran all the systems in all the hospitals in a country, and did a fantastic job of it, except it picked out randomly about 30k people a year and killed them because of an edge case and a bit of undefined behavior. Would you fix that bug or would you just point out that because overall the system is better than most we shouldn’t worry? We clearly set the precedent that the constitution can be too vague and in one case outright wrong. I say the second amendment is a bad amendment and has been for at least the past 50 years.
Yup the app will work great for just one person! Thanks for checking it out.
Not Texas alone, but the 2A doesn't exist so Texas can secede. And it wasn't was I was referring to, anyway. It exists, among other reasons, to ensure the US government won't become authoritarian. If the US did decide to consolidate power (à la the 1930s) it would be met with an armed resistance. Sure, there would be a power imbalance. But simply based on sheer numbers it'd be a nearly insurmountable task for the US government to quash it.
> It is the single most vaguely worded and most misapplied portion of it.
Okay, I'm just gonna be maybe a little too pedantic here, but that sounds too subjective to me. Plenty of folks might argue the right to privacy found in Roe v. Wade is more misapplied. And plenty of folks seem to think the 1st amendment gives, for example, racists too large of a platform and that platform has, both directly and indirectly, caused suffering to millions of minority groups.
> It’s like if you wrote a piece of code that ran all the systems in all the hospitals in a country...
That sort of presupposes the only way to fix the software is to scrap the entire thing. What if it were possible to add some bug fixes in other parts of the program? (Which is kinda what I've alluded to before—I think we could fix a lot of the 30,000 number without having to scrap the entire thing.)
> Yup the app will work great for just one person! Thanks for checking it out.
Sweet! I've been looking for a simple app that I don't have to connect my bank account to, unlike, say, Mint.
I am proposing scrapping this single sentence amendment. Or rather not scrapping it but adding a new amendment that is significantly more clear. Something like "Except where allowed by a law passed by congress, citizens shall not have the right to own firearms." Or something significantly longer and better. Then after that's passed, let's enact some specific laws that allow it.
And awesome. Let me know if you want me to shoot you a promo code for the ad-free version of the app.
Sure! That'd be nice.
[1]: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/sTbiw2S8fHl89qyY6AXbohcKkv...
Why not subdivide further and claim that Buskerud is a veritable warzone, compared to the whole of USA on average?
There are however plenty of European countries with populations large enough to avoid this problem (Germany, France, Italy, UK...).
Neither do the Norway ones.
The numbers are in fact so wrong that one has to seriously question the motivations of the author, it seems like this is a propaganda piece with made up numbers designed to make the US appear slightly less terrible.
I'm still not sure which events the Finland one refers to.
The Finland events are obviously Jokela and Kauhajoki.
It's not that obvious with the 2009 Sello shooting being dropped out and the 2011 Utoya shooting being included.
Given the poor coverage it is very difficult to reverse engineer what this graph is supposed to portray without finding the original source.
I’m always skeptical of statistics about highly politicized issues as the interpretations and sampling can be very irresponsible/biased.
It’s clearly missing data, Finland for example had more than two mass shootings during those years.
The numbers look bad because they are bad, they may however be bad for different reasons than I originally suggested.
I might try to dig up some more recent stuff.
People who hold a gun license can buy semi-automatic shotguns, bolt-action rifles, single-shot rifles and double-barrel rifles to hunt with but all rifles over 8 millimeters in caliber are banned in Iceland, although with a special permit to hunt large animals abroad, such as elephants or African cape buffalos.
It is also possible to obtain a special collector’s license for handguns and sports associations practicing marksmanship can apply for a license to use small indoor 22 caliber handguns as used in the Olympics.
To obtain a gun license people must attend a course and pass a test at the police station. They also have to pass a medical examination where they are specifically asked about their mental health. The gun license is issued by the respective District Commissioner."
Legal firearms in Finland must be registered and licensed on a per-gun basis[2]
Do you the see the problem? In the US, the second amendment makes it extremely hard to make sure that bad actors (a small percentage of the population) don't get a gun. In the countries you mentioned, they have an effective of preventing this from happening.
[1]http://icelandreview.com/stuff/ask-ir/2011/02/10/what-kind-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland
Because it's exactly those proper gun regulations which allow these countries to have many guns, without irresponsible owners constantly getting innocents killed and police being forced to treat everybody they encounter as a potentially armed suspect. That's also the reason why not every police officer in Iceland needs to carry a gun [1].
Case in point: Neither Finland nor Iceland has "open carry", they actually require you to have a reason for wanting to get a permit. In Iceland, applicants have to go through a government course to show they are actually responsible and able enough to own a firearm. In Finland, each individual gun is registered with its own permit.
Contrast that with the situation in the US: There is no federal gun regulation, each state makes its own laws, which leads to lots of loopholes (buying guns at gun shows) and ultimately leads to a flood of unregulated guns getting into the hands of people who lack the training and responsibility to own such a "tool".
Additionally many of these "high ownership, barely any shootings" countries put in place peer control by demanding that gun owners actually state a reason for wanting to own a gun. This entails either regular participation in organized shooting sports or in actual hunting clubs.
Nobody there gets a gun "just because" as getting a legal permit entails quite a bit of work, effort, and responsibility on the side of the applicant. Which is the exact opposite sentiment of that present in the US.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18...
An issue with the provided list is that these countries are all relatively poor. As for something that stood out for this list for me: inequality. i.e.: with the exception of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, all the Gini coefficients are above 35% (with the US (41%) being most similar to Turkey/Turkmenistan/Ukraine (41%/43%/41%). Compare that to Iceland and Finland (26%, 27%)
America doesn't have much in common with those countries listed. They are much poorer countries where law and order isn't upheld as well as the US.
I think the key is not just gun ownership rates but WHO is owning the gun and WHY. The Iceland and Finland examples make me think cold countries with higher rural populations and hunting as a sport or necessity.
OTOH in USA perhaps more ordinary people buy guns for self defence purposes with the intent to shoot a person not an animal.
Edit: weird I can now see the reply button for that comment I didn't before. Apologies
Guns are definately a problem, but a bigger problem is the idea that we Officers at high risk so that they can be gloried toll collectors. If you cut traffic stops by 80% and used cameras for speed enforcement, you’d dramatically reduce Officer shootings and attacks on officers.
Train them to be EMTs and paramedics instead. The police and public should not be afraid of each other.
That said, I'm a believer in the second amendment -- I just think there's definitely an argument to be had.
The average American spends several hours a week watching TV and movies where the rule-breaking shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later cop is the hero. Probably most people who join the police see themselves in that role.
Here in the UK our cop shows are like Midsomer Murders. Most episodes don’t even feature a gun...
Midsomer Murders is a murder mystery show, not really a cop show. There are plenty of action oriented Brotish Cop shows.
I love Midsomer Murders by the way.
But your rusty gardening tools seem as efficient and they enhance murdering creativity :-)
Actually, part of the problem is that you never end up in prison for wrongly killing.
Here is a cop being fired for NOT shooting someone https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/12/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shoo...
Part of the problem is that police in America offer the default excuse of fearing for their lives in virtually every situation where they shoot someone. I doubt they're actually that cowardly, but it's been a successful formula for them in administrative proceedings.
I think this sums it up better than if you were trying to make the point that I’m about to attempt. It’s not necessarily “likely” that someone is going to die in all of these situations. It’s a possibility.
It’s probably near impossible to tell the difference in the middle of a high-stress situation, but the assumption that it’s going to result in death at the outset is the problem.
Example, where a soldier was criminally charged for shooting a likely combatant in the head, after nearly being blown up by a bomb.