The vast majority of noise complaints shouldn't require deadly force or any weapon at all. It's exactly the kind of work that police shouldn't even be involved in. I suppose it would be a massive improvement if they even kept their weapons in the trunk of their cars, but ideally you'd have someone qualified responding to noise complaints who could request police backup when needed.

>The vast majority of noise complaints shouldn't require deadly force or any weapon at all. It's exactly the kind of work that police shouldn't even be involved in.

The problem is many Americans will become violent when told by someone they're being too loud. I had a neighbor in college threaten to shoot me once because I complained about their noise. Police can't be expected to run to their car when some nutcase pulls a gun on them. In other countries this might be ok, but in the land of extremist individualism where there's far more guns than people, it's a bad idea.

If a police officer came to your door to tell you that you were being too loud would you ignore them unless they had a gun pointed at you? I'm guessing that you wouldn't and neither would your neighbor. Almost no one would. Yes, crazy people do exist, but the overwhelming majority are not psychopaths who would shoot anyone who knocks on their door. Most people understand that if you shoot at the unarmed cop, you'll be quickly surrounded by large numbers of armed ones who will come to lock you away.

Very few people will choose to go to prison instead of turning down their music or calming down their guests.

> Most people understand that if you shoot at the unarmed cop, you'll be quickly surrounded by large numbers of armed ones who will come to lock you away.

In many situations, you'll be quickly surrounded by large numbers of armed ones looking to shoot back at you, but if they're forced to accept arresting you unharmed, they will...

Very true. The whole trope of "I will not be disrespected" is a huge US character trait.

The problem is for a notable segment of the populace, "disrespect" can be as minor as "looking bemusedly at you" or having the audacity to have a different opinion.

The problem is that you don’t know what noise complaints are dangerous or not.

> but ideally you'd have someone qualified responding to noise complaints who could request police backup when needed.

I don’t think you are going to get any takers for that job. “You only are going to get shot at 1% of the time, if you survive you can call for police backup.”

> I don’t think you are going to get any takers for that job. “You only are going to get shot at 1% of the time, if you survive you can call for police backup.”

Thanks for elaborating the point, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with the "you go do it then". How are you going to convince people to join the police knowing they'll be going into places where people will be armed but you yourself are not armed and somehow need to enforce the law and project some level of authority if the situation is hairy.

> I don’t think you are going to get any takers for that job. “You only are going to get shot at 1% of the time, if you survive you can call for police backup.”

If that were true, unarmed security guards wouldn't exist yet we have no problems finding people willing to do that job.

Unarmed security guards aren't approaching random houses with unknown situations for noise complaints.

They're often in places more dangerous including patrolling neighborhoods (the kinds neighborhoods that need extra paid security) full of 'random houses' and they investigate suspicious noises every one of which is an unknown situation. I'd rather tell people having parties to turn down their music than confront people breaking into places and committing crimes with nothing but a flashlight and a radio.

As long as they aren't opening doors, its not the same thing. Security guards are making the rounds in places they know well, they aren't engaging with dangerous situations (e.g. physically confronting a shoplifter at QFC or Fred Myer is a huge no no).

> I'd rather tell people having parties to turn down their music than confront people breaking into places and committing crimes with nothing but a flashlight and a radio.

You only think that a few times before you realize the first situation will sometimes lead to a lot more trouble than the first.

You are very right in terms of the dangers cops face. But somehow, all this reminds me of: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/immune-sn...

But we got to find a way to break this escalatory cycle?

It’s not about having no guns. It’s about having better training to have other options than pure violence and intimidation to solve problems.

It seems that being unarmed in that situation would be safer, wouldn't it? One doesn't 'win' a gunfight so being armed is just a provocation - unless there's a strategy and intent to disable/kill right off the bat in which case the police should be coming in as a coordinated SWAT team.