How I see it is that the officers of their own freewill took on the role of law enforcement and public service.

Fully aware that they would be put in life threatening situations.

Their first instinct shouldn't be to fire first to save their own skin, but be trained to take time to assess the situation and risk erring on restraint of force.

Most of the talk coming from police departments usually state their actions in terms of the officer's personal safety.

Though that is important, due to their choice and the role in society that they play, their safety should be a secondary concern to the safety and lives of those they are to protect.

The police had complete control over how they approached this. Why then are they even in a position where they feel threatened?

When we look at the outcome here, they just killed some dude for no reason. If this is acceptable to the police force; why not have them call out to the room with a megaphone? What is the worst case scenario then? Hostage gets shot by a criminal instead of a policeperson?

In this day and age, they could just fly in a drone in with a microphone and and a speaker while they sit 200 meters behind a bullet proof screen. Instead they proactivly put themselves in a situation where they felt at personal risk from ... turned out to be some dude sitting in his house. How could they have come up with a worse plan?

UK police for example tends to respond with overwhelming force, clear the area if possible, and contain their potential adversary, and if possible often wait the situation out. They will use violence if they have to, but it ends up being rare.

Stupid accidents still happens (e.g. an unarmed man was shot because police worried he might be a terrorist a few years back), but serious ones are predictably few when police defaults to avoid violence, and defaults to not even carry guns. But even firearms teams who are specifically called out when a suspect is armed have few serious accidents because they're not there to shoot their way to a resolution except as a last resort.

In the end it was labeled a police-assisted suicide i.e. he still shot himself and the police have 0% responsibility. The irony is that at the same time across town, the police chief of Portland was giving a conference about how the police will use less deadly force in such encounters in the future (because this wasn't the first time).

Not clear why a sleeping dart couldn't have been used though. Animal control does a pretty good job in such situations.

As mentioned, he shot the ground directly in front of himself. Once.

And as mentioned elsewhere here, German police would in that case shoot e.g. a leg to disable the threat, not aim to kill. Someone gave the kill order and a lot of shots were fired. Of course your suggestion to use a sleeping dart (or something similar) would be ideal.

On top of all that but less relevant to this thread, they left the body uncovered on the street until late in the afternoon, approx. 8 hours. I took a lot of pictures of the entire thing (starting after the shooting, because I was afraid the police might think I had a gun too with my huge black camera with telephoto lens).

I honestly don’t believe anyone gave a kill order, I rather feel (maybe not fairly) that police had guns trained on him and heard gun fire and instinctively pulled without even taking a second to analyze situation. If I’m right (good video footage could help prove the theory), this should scare everyone (but likely won’t).

“If a police officer hears and sees the perp’s gun go off, they likely won’t stop to think even long enough to see who got shot, but likely instinctively pull to neutralize the threat.”

In most places outside the US, they’d aim for legs / arms as that would “neutralize” but not “kill”. In this scenario they’ve got snipers trained on him after all, no excuses about handgun accuracy. Yet in the US, you’ll virtually never see that, all shots will be into the chest.

That was 2005, 3 weeks after a successful terrorist attack on the tube, and 1 day after an unsuccessful one. It was news for weeks and resulted in a criminal prosecution for the head of the police force involved.

More broadly, the whole episode made them look incredibly incompetent, callous and uncaring. No action was taken against the officers who were clearly culpable through their abject incompetence (for example, if he was a potential suicide bomber, why wasn't he stopped before he got on a train?). Furthermore, the force took far too long to apologise and admit errors publicly. And they never adequately explained the tactics that led to an innocent man being shot without warning.

This is very similar in character to the issues which plague policing in the USA and has served to sow a great deal of distrust of the police here. Witness the "London riots" in 2011, for example.

And that's also set against a background where they have been publicly found to be "institutionally racist". Subsequently to the de Menezes incident, armed police also "accidentally" shot an unarmed suspect in the shoulder while running upstairs in a house in the Forest Gate raid (which again, just makes them look like amateurs).

And so on.

So our police are very far from perfect - it's just that being better than some of the worst excesses seen in the liberal world is not a hard standard to meet.

I think this might be more of a difference between the legality of guns in the US and UK. Guns are so rare in the UK because they are illegal to own for almost everyone. I can imagine that makes a big difference for a police officer's expectation of the likely potential danger of public adversaries... yes there are still knives and acid and whatnot but those are close quarter and improvised weapons that don't emerge so suddenly from a distance, I think those make you far less "jumpy" for lack of a better description.

PS. Please don't start an "anti guns" thread under here because we all know that never goes anywhere on the internet. I'm simply pointing out that the prevalence of guns will have a big impact on personal risk felt by law enforcers and that is a relevant difference between these two countries.

Some of the differences:

1. a different gun culture. Most weapons in Norway are actually for hunting, and no that does not mean semi-automatics etc.. A few are for firing on a range, but there's no culture for seeing a firearm as intended for self defense, and the laws specifically makes it hard (you need to store the weapon locked down and inoperable, and generally you'd e.g. store gun and ammo separately; if you have time to arm yourself, police will question whether or not you had the ability to get away and call for help instead - if the threat is not immediate enough you risk a murder charge).

2. A culture for not meeting suspects with force unless they're armed, and generally focus on de-escalation, and for taking weapons use extremely seriously. E.g. officers need to account for every time they take their weapon out and every bullet fired.

3. A legal system that is generally lenient but where there is a clear path of escalation in response based on how dangerous a crime is. E.g. a robbery carries a sentence up to 5 years if unarmed, of which you'd generally serve less than half (and most people won't get the maximum sentence) - as an example, a robber that participated in a stealing one of the instances of Scream and Madonna by Munch got 2 years and 6 months a decade and a bit back.

Arm yourself, and you risk an additional 7 years. Kill or seriously injure someone during a robbery, and you might get 21. As an example, one of the largest armed robberies in recent Norwegian history, that ended up with one dead poice officer, (the "Nokas" robbery) ended up with one of them getting 18 years, and several others getting 16. That's a pretty substantial extra risk on top of the risks involved in a shootout with police.

Combine that with #2, and criminals have a very strong incentive in general for not being armed - by not arming themselves they don't risk being shot at by police, and they cut the worst case punishment from 21 to at most 5 years in a robbery, for example.

Compare to the US, where a robber has little reason to want to take the risk that police won't shoot even if they're unarmed, given how often we hear of police firing even at innocent civilians. Couple that with high sentences and the incremental cost in using firearms to prevent police from catching or killing them is low.

legality_of_guns * gun_culture * gun_ownership_legal_details * gun_crime_sentence_details * police_gun_use_rules * police_descelation_emphasis

Specifically the differences between culture and usage laws between US and Norway that you describe.

I don't think so; UK gun restrictions are relatively recent (~20 years). I would attribute it to the Peelian Principles¹, which post-date US disconnection from Britain.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

This statement is misleading. Yes there were gun laws made twenty years ago, as there were ten years before that, twenty years before that, thirty years before that ... right back to 1594. Source Wikipedia.

The reason for this is simple. It just takes one situation (or at least one believably plausible situation) for people of power to justify a quicker resolution that ultimately gives them more power and meets their KPI goals (more arrests, less bad guys living).

In this case, imagine a real armed gunman shoots a hostage or a stray bullet hits an innocent bystander. Imagine the outcry of the public and SJW's: "OMG they should have just run in there and killed the SOB! Or better, shoot him in the leg! Do something police!"

Solution? A more swift resolution to the problem - i.e. SWAT style infiltration.

Americans seems to be perpetually caught in a victim-aggressor-rescuer drama triangle...

Cops need to go to jail for this. Its as simple as that. And they will find the way to not shoot like that anymore.

I'm disturbed by that line of thought. A normally educated human being from a developed country should feel bad about using deadly force, and worse after using it. The whole point of military training is to break the human instinct no to kill and even with the pressure of actual combat situation (where the upside is much higher, the downside much lower than for SWAT teams), killing breaks the soldier mentally.

What kind of people is the US is selecting (or what kind of training) for its police force that only some fear of criminal prosecution is keeping them from shooting people ?

After shooting dead an innocent, you would expect a police officer to be mentally wrecked. Even worse as he utterly failed at his primary mission of protecting the citizen which, as a Police officer, should normally be pretty high up in his list of personal priorities. So I can of understand going easy of the Police, from a legal point of view. But if the kind of people you have in the police are the one looking for the license to kill to assuage their most primal instinct, the problem is not with the legal side, you are hiring/training really wrong. That's not a police force, that's a criminal cartel.

The ghost of a 1% danger vs a 0% consequence makes it a pretty rational decision. Bear in mind that criminals, even those with hostages, dont make the decision to shoot so fast: they know that if you shoot the hostage you die or get captured immediately. So the criminals do respond to the punishment. Why wouldnt cops?

The police is also under an immense pressure when they are assigned to a hostage situation.

Yes, I suppose much of that comes from their own feeling that they must achieve a quick resolution to a distressing situation, and if they are not well trained, not experienced and do not have the right incentives to work in a professional way, this kind of tragedies will happen.

In my country of 5 million people, the police force (8000 policemen) often uses less than 10 bullets in action per year, per the whole force (including warning shots but excluding ammunition used in training), but on the other hand, police officers being killed in the line of duty is also extremely rare, so they can usually approach most situations without being too aggressive.

(This is not because we wouldn't have a lot of guns in the country - we do. We just don't have violent subcultures that would shoot each other or the police.)

As a son of a cop and former service member myself, the whole thing makes me sick. And the COMPLETE lack of repercussions makes me furious. God forbid some idiot doesn't get his "gold watch." The thin blue line will rally around that idiot to protect him.

And it takes advantage of US police officers' lack of training in de-escalation. Compared to other western countries, American police officers receive less training, and their training is more focused on shooting, less on de-escalation. Better training would go a long way towards preventing them from being abused like this.

Policy changes, and collective action, are.

I agree with this, however, do you realize that the officers were told this was a hostage situation? I think in this case they were thinking about the hostages, not themselves since they weren't the ones being threatened.

  There is plenty of reason to restrict the use of SWAT teams, but not to abolish
  them. They are needed now and then, when there is an actual hostage situation or
  an armed gang that tries to shoot it's way out. They should never be used for
  routine search or arrest warrants. That not only endangers the possibly innocent
  target of the raid, but it undermines the team's training – they become used to
  tearing up houses where no one is resisting. There's a dashboard video of the
  Jose Guerena raid. My drill instructor would have said they looked "like a monkey
  fucking a football" – and I was in the Air Force, ground tactics weren't even on
  the curriculum. I've seen considerably more forceful comments from Army and
  Marine Corps infantrymen who actually have had to break into a house against
  armed defenders. They milled around, exposed themselves to possible fire through
  the open door, and got into each others line of fire. They did NOT identify
  themselves as police that I can hear on the audio track, so Guerena was justified
  in hunkering down in a defensive position with a rifle. If Guerena (a former
  Marine) hadn't been far more professional than any of the cops and not fired
  without identifying his targets, several cops would have been down.

  Then there are the SWAT members that "accidentally" (that is, negligently) fired
  a round and killed an unresisting, unarmed suspect because they tripped or
  bumped their elbow – an accident that can only happen if you are in violation of
  the two most important rules of gun safety: don't put your finger on the trigger
  until you have decided to shoot, and don't point the muzzle near anything that
  you do not intend to shoot. We know they were running around with their finger
  on the trigger – in a situation where there was clearly no need for shooting –
  because modern firearms in good working order just don't fire unless the trigger
  is pulled. The military just doesn't tolerate that. If a non-police civilian in
  my state had done this, he could have been sentenced to life for manslaughter.
  But if you are a cop, you can recklessly kill someone and the prosecutor will
  throw the case…

>

There is plenty of reason to restrict the use of SWAT teams, but not to abolish them. They are needed now and then, when there is an actual hostage situation or an armed gang that tries to shoot it's way out. They should never be used for routine search or arrest warrants. That not only endangers the possibly innocent target of the raid, but it undermines the team's training – they become used to tearing up houses where no one is resisting. There's a dashboard video of the Jose Guerena raid. My drill instructor would have said they looked "like a monkey fucking a football" – and I was in the Air Force, ground tactics weren't even on the curriculum. I've seen considerably more forceful comments from Army and Marine Corps infantrymen who actually have had to break into a house against armed defenders. They milled around, exposed themselves to possible fire through the open door, and got into each others line of fire. They did NOT identify themselves as police that I can hear on the audio track, so Guerena was justified in hunkering down in a defensive position with a rifle. If Guerena (a former Marine) hadn't been far more professional than any of the cops and not fired without identifying his targets, several cops would have been down.

Then there are the SWAT members that "accidentally" (that is, negligently) fired a round and killed an unresisting, unarmed suspect because they tripped or bumped their elbow – an accident that can only happen if you are in violation of the two most important rules of gun safety: don't put your finger on the trigger until you have decided to shoot, and don't point the muzzle near anything that you do not intend to shoot. We know they were running around with their finger on the trigger – in a situation where there was clearly no need for shooting – because modern firearms in good working order just don't fire unless the trigger is pulled. The military just doesn't tolerate that. If a non-police civilian in my state had done this, he could have been sentenced to life for manslaughter. But if you are a cop, you can recklessly kill someone and the prosecutor will throw the case…

I'm always very puzzled when I have to do HN quoting/bullet points, so I thought 80-columns code would fit well (evidently, it doesn't).

I also wonder why HN doesn't improve formatting, which has at least a couple of very common problems (the mentioned code and bullet points rendering).

It would be nice if MIME format=flowed was a thing for quoted text on web pages that otherwise would be hard-wrapped.

On mobile this will mean only about 35 columns are visible at once.

I'm Irish, so while we do have some branches of the police who are armed, most are not. I wonder how the armed Irish Gardi would stack up training wise against armed American cops (ignoring the fact that every state / city would be different..).

Would our limiting of arms to a smaller group result in better training and responses? Or are they just as likely to mis-fire and fail to identify themselves?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-vid...

The officer who shot him was exonerated but IMO, the officer belligerently shouting confusing instructions at him should have faced scrutiny. Instead, he got to retire with a full pension while testifying on behalf of the officer who did pull the trigger.

i would bet that almost everyone being in such a position, or standing at their front door in front of their neighbors, who felt their bottom falling down, would instinctively reach down without thinking.

some points to note about that incident -

a) he had the pellet gun as part of his job as an exterminator, even if he was careless in demonstrating how he used it to shoot birds for pest control

b) think about how easily the officers could have gone to the wrong hotel room; you, me or anyone random could've been in the room next door to Shaver and been treated the same (and probably wouldve reacted the same), even if we'd just poked out head outside our room to see what the heck was going on

I thought the right to do this was for many the single most important principle of your country, shouldn’t the police have responded to reports of somebody with a gun with “Well this is the USA, nothing to see here?”

i guess it's up to you to decide for yourself whether or not that could be called "careless". or whether it would be reasonable for a passerby to call in a report of someone pointing a rifle outside of a hotel room window, a couple months after Las Vegas.

the commentor seemed to conflate the questions of "was it not completely legal for him to possess that item?" and "was it careless (legal or not) to show it off in that manner?"

  - A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with malice aforethought
  - A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
  - A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life

[1] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-m...

Note in particular it is a different officer who is talking in the video and created the whole situation.

Imagine the person that called the police to investigate someone with a possible weapon in a hotel, moments later police show up in SWAT gear with AR-15s and discharge them in the hallway, with many other rooms around, and kill an innocent man. Worse, bullets could have gone into rooms or out the window into the parking lot and who knows where else. Why not rubber bullets, why not a taser, why an AR-15 in a hotel hallway?

Next time you see one of these shootings, watch the disregard in some for who is behind the person the police are shooting at [1][2][3] whether justified or not, it is a bit scary. It is getting to the point that maybe it is safer to not call police, what if you were robbed and they come in and shoot the guy in front or you house, bullets everywhere?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper...

[2] https://nypost.com/video/cop-fatally-shoots-suicidal-man/

[3] http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/12/10/daniel-shaver-philip...

This happened to me on Wednesday about 5:00am. My wife and I had gotten into a terrible fight. She suffers from terrible alcoholism. This week of Christmas has been absolutely horrible as demons resurface. She awoke me from my sleep about 4am, drunk and outraged because I asked if she was wearing a robe in bed. Things spiraled very quickly out of control, my wife was out of control, and so was I. We both said terrible things and made unwanted body contact. The fight made its way to the driveway and a neighbor called in the disturbance.

About 30 minutes later I was awoken by the doorbell. I knew who it was. I threw on my PJ pants and a hoodie. Fifteen minutes later I was in handcuffs heading to the county jail.

I could have easily been in a very very bad situation if I hadn't followed orders to the letter.

My wife and I are in therapy and she will be entering detox this next week. I hope this event turns into the wake up call that helps her beat this disease with my help all along the way.

Peace.

The reason I ask is that only situation in which my alcohol abuse has triggered any kind of verbal exchange is where (unaware of my situation) my partner has been snappy about something, and due to lack of sleep (staying up late, secretly drinking), I've responded less diplomatically than I would have liked. Never abusive, never physical by either party, and only a small number of times.

Under no circumstance has either of us become physical. That's a totally different problem, and I'd encourage you to seek help for your wife (If I'm understanding correctly that she was the one that became aggressive, or both of you otherwise) It's probably also the time to consider what's best for you both in the long term.

Unrelated to that, but apropos your comment and the OP, I had a cop pull a gun on me when I was 19. I naively, but quite literally laughed it off, as I was doing my job and had no idea the risk I was in from his overreaction.

I was in college, but working a night security job. I had to check the premises set the internal alarm, then check the outside doors. Unfortunately a (really stupid) design flaw in the alarm system resulted in the occasional false silent alarm.

On this occasion, as I was checking the outside doors, a cruiser rolled up, the cop saying they'd received an alarm call.

I identified myself, invited him in (first mistake), then said I'd switch off the alarm (second mistake - why I don't know - it was a silent alarm!)

Switching off the alarm with a key switch required reaching around a door in to a closet where the alarm system was.

I turned around to discover the now less-than-friendly looking cop pointing his gun at me.

I laughed instinctively, as to my innocent mind it seemed absurd. Thankfully, that seemed to drop his guard. He was 6 feet away, and my hands were now clearly empty.

I wasn't asked to follow Simon-says "crawl towards me with your left foot over your right, and your hands straight in the in the air, or we will shoot you type instructions, and shortly after, the dispatcher ID'd me as being a registered person for the property.

Now that I think about it, I had several negative experiences with the cops in a 2 year period. (Broke into my residence in the middle of the night for no reason - I was more embarrassed that it was untidy!; gatecrashed a party because they "didn't like the music" (no neighbours, no disturbance), probably looking for underage alcohol; stopped for speeding on a bicycle!!!

As someone who has lost family members to alcohol (both figuratively while they were living, and now literally as they have passed away), I’m always prone to respond to opening sentences like yours with “today is a great day to get sober.”

There is a meeting near where you live today. https://www.aa.org/pages/en_US/find-local-aa

If you’re looking for some inspiration from another addict, I always recommend Bob Forest. You can hear him on the This Life podcast with Drew Pinsky http://drdrew.com/thislife/.

Best of luck to you.

It stands out to me because they thought it was weird, but to me it's just the easiest way to get up when you're on a crowded train and there's no space to your sides to support you on.

But to a stressed out, scared armed response team even that made him seem scarier.

To this date, almost ten years later, I think of that case ever time I get up from a seat that way. Not that I expect to be mistaken for a terrorist, but because it underlines just how bad people are at interpreting body language, and how dangerous that can be when combined with stressed out armed police.

But that's all irrelevant. If the cops were only interested in securing him, they would've made him lie down like a starfish and have someone approach him instead of letting Jigsaw make him play Twister.

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."

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqB2a1K9dBw

>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.

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.

On the other hand, law enforcement is less dangerous than agriculture, transportation, or "grounds maintenance" (!) (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott

[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).

[0]: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable16.pdf

[1]: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

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.

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 :-)