How does an unarmed police force protect its citizens?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**notprop**

jmurph wrote:
There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.

And/or better Policing.

**SickSix**

notprop wrote:
jmurph wrote:
There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.

And/or better Policing.

You can't even make a valid comparison. The environments are soo far apart from eachother.

**Selym**

SickSix wrote:
notprop wrote:
jmurph wrote:
There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.

And/or better Policing.

You can't even make a valid comparison. The environments are soo far apart from eachother.

Some would say there's a vast ocean between them.

**Kilkrazy**

SickSix wrote:
notprop wrote:
jmurph wrote:
There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.

And/or better Policing.

You can't even make a valid comparison. The environments are soo far apart from eachother.

That is a comparison in itself.

**sebster**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Until the Mexican government produces data that supports their claim of 200,000 firearms being illegally smuggled into their country from the US each day I don't see a reason to repeat their claim as fact.

The figure of 580 guns a day is the low ball figure. It's the lowest figure of what is considered a reasonable guess. And 580 is more than 200,000 a year.

I'm sorry, but any attempt to claim that the guns in Mexico aren't getting there from the US is just head in the sand stuff. It'd be no different to saying 'sure there's loads of drugs in Mexico and cartels that work to get their drugs in to other countries, but we can't know for sure if that's where lots of the drugs in the US are coming from'.

The percentage of guns sent to the ATF for tracing that can be traced to the US is still only a subset of the number of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities. 3,480 is 87% of 4,000 but 3,480 is only 48% of 7,200 so where did the 52% of confiscated guns that weren't sent to the ATF for tracing come from?

That's how sampling works. You send a sample, test that and measure it as a percentage of the whole. You don't have to test every single gun to get a decent measure of the total population.

We can't make straw purchases even more illegal than they already are and we can't put everyone who purchases a gun under surveillance to track their movements.

You could, though, track purchases by individuals to establish patterns. If a guy is buying multiple pistols and rifles each month, and then you run a check and he's working part time at Wendy's and has multiple priors for gang related crime... it's pretty safe to investigate and establish what he's doing. But that investigation would only start with information reaching local or federal police about one person buying multiple guns, likely from different gun stores. Collecting that information would require tracking gun purchases in a way that many Americans, and I'm guessing you yourself, wouldn't be comfortable with.

I'm not saying you should do it, that's up to you guys. But just be aware of what the options really are, and what turning away from those options costs.

The best way to reduce the gun smuggling would be to reduce the demand which gets us back to how the federal, state and local governments legislate against drugs and enforce and prosecute drug crimes. Right now our laws create a high demand for illegal drugs and that high demand creates a hugely profitable illegal drug trade which creates violence as cartels and criminals vie for control of portions of that lucrative trade in illegal drugs.

That would certainly play a part. And it's the flip side of the point I just made about the cost of looser gun laws. It's okay to have tight drug laws, a country can decide that if they want. But they should be honest in recognising that it pushes drug production and distribution in to criminal hands, and that will bring murder and police corruption with it. People just need to be honest about that.

**CptJake**

Except the majority of guns used by cartels in Mexico captured by the gov't of Mexico are not traced to the US, especially not to straw purchases (guns from the US given to Gov of Mexico and then finding their way to the Cartels are not the guns we're talking about).

The majority of guns used do come from Central America or at least through Central America. The cartels tend to want actual military hardware, and have access to it. But not from guns purchased in US gun shops.

**Prestor Jon**

sebster wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Until the Mexican government produces data that supports their claim of 200,000 firearms being illegally smuggled into their country from the US each day I don't see a reason to repeat their claim as fact.

The figure of 580 guns a day is the low ball figure. It's the lowest figure of what is considered a reasonable guess. And 580 is more than 200,000 a year.

I'm sorry, but any attempt to claim that the guns in Mexico aren't getting there from the US is just head in the sand stuff. It'd be no different to saying 'sure there's loads of drugs in Mexico and cartels that work to get their drugs in to other countries, but we can't know for sure if that's where lots of the drugs in the US are coming from'.

The percentage of guns sent to the ATF for tracing that can be traced to the US is still only a subset of the number of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities. 3,480 is 87% of 4,000 but 3,480 is only 48% of 7,200 so where did the 52% of confiscated guns that weren't sent to the ATF for tracing come from?

That's how sampling works. You send a sample, test that and measure it as a percentage of the whole. You don't have to test every single gun to get a decent measure of the total population.

We can't make straw purchases even more illegal than they already are and we can't put everyone who purchases a gun under surveillance to track their movements.

You could, though, track purchases by individuals to establish patterns. If a guy is buying multiple pistols and rifles each month, and then you run a check and he's working part time at Wendy's and has multiple priors for gang related crime... it's pretty safe to investigate and establish what he's doing. But that investigation would only start with information reaching local or federal police about one person buying multiple guns, likely from different gun stores. Collecting that information would require tracking gun purchases in a way that many Americans, and I'm guessing you yourself, wouldn't be comfortable with.

I'm not saying you should do it, that's up to you guys. But just be aware of what the options really are, and what turning away from those options costs.

The best way to reduce the gun smuggling would be to reduce the demand which gets us back to how the federal, state and local governments legislate against drugs and enforce and prosecute drug crimes. Right now our laws create a high demand for illegal drugs and that high demand creates a hugely profitable illegal drug trade which creates violence as cartels and criminals vie for control of portions of that lucrative trade in illegal drugs.

That would certainly play a part. And it's the flip side of the point I just made about the cost of looser gun laws. It's okay to have tight drug laws, a country can decide that if they want. But they should be honest in recognising that it pushes drug production and distribution in to criminal hands, and that will bring murder and police corruption with it. People just need to be honest about that.

I'm not hiding my head in the sand or denying that some amount of guns are bought in US gun stores and smuggled into Mexico. I believe that the 2,000 guns per day figure can't be supported by data and was contrived to allow former president Calderon to make a stronger political point. I recognize that 580 is the lowball figure but at least it's supported by data and sound methodology, the number could be greater, is even likely to be greater but 580 is still a better substantiated figure than 2,000. I thought you agreed with that.

sebster wrote:
Breotan wrote:
I think you may have missed a sentence or two in the article you quoted.

Nah, you should just click through on the links. The link about Mexican security forces being a source of weapons... still has all those weapons coming from the US. Seriously click through to the link - it talks about police and security forces being a key part of the operation to bring US guns across the border. And then it talks about 'recycling guns', ie taking weapons captured in raids out of police lockers before they are decommissioned and then selling them on the black market. At no point does it mention a primary source of weapons as being anywhere other than the US.

You make a fair point about the 2,000 per day count. I did wonder about whether to use that number or not, and decided in the end that the reply was punchier and shorter that it would otherwise be. I figured whether the figure was 580 or 2,000 it was still a lot. But I should have just used 580, so you make a fair call there.

The Mexican govt isn't sending guns to the ATF to be traced as a sampling, they're sending them to get confirmation. The 87% figure isn't accurate in regards to the percentage of the total of confiscated arms that are sourced to US gun stores.
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don't bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department's Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.

Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States — especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.

Back in 2011 CBS news covered this, doing reporting on the massive increase in US gun manufacturers being authorized to sell large bulk shipments of arms directly to the Mexican army and the problem with those guns ending up in cartel hands.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-us-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the official tracking all those guns sold through "direct commercial sales" leaves something to be desired.

One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.

Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.

That prompted a "sensitive" cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted" into criminal hands.

And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable.

There's no response in the record.

The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico - then diverted to violent cartels - is becoming more urgent. That's because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through "direct commercial sales." It's a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.

Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.

And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.

"I think most Americans are aware that there's a problem in terms of the drug traffickers in Mexico, increases in violence," said Bill Hartung, an arms control advocate with the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. "I don't think they realize that we're sending so many guns there, and that some of them may be diverted to the very cartels that we're trying to get under control."

The State Department audits only a tiny sample - less than 1 percent of sales - but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were "diverted" into the wrong hands, or had other "unfavorable" results.

The FBI statistics show that in 2015 there were 23,141,970 NICS checks run by FFLs in the US. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

Not all NICS checks result in the purchase of new guns so those 23 million checks in 2015 probably resulted in about 17.5 million new firearms sold to private citizens.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/dean-weingarten/2015-record-year-for-firearms-sales-and-nics-background-checks/

NICS background checks don’t represent a one-to-one correspondence to increases in the private stock of firearms. Some NICS checks are performed for used guns. Some are completed for people obtaining a concealed carry permit, who aren’t necessarily purchasing a gun. Once people obtain a carry permit, most don’t need to go through the NICS system again if they purchase a gun. Also, several guns can be purchased by an individual on one NICS check.

Still, there is a high correlation between NICS checks and gun sales. In 2013, the last record year, one NICS check corresponded to .76 new private firearms. 2014 and 2015 are both very similar to 2013 in the number of NICS checks. The .76 ratio was used to extrapolate the increase in private firearms during those years.

17.5 million is a lot of guns. Even if just 2% of those guns were straw purchases made by Mexican cartel smuggling rings that would be just over 350,000 guns. Given the research done by the USD/Igarape study it's likely that more than 2% of purchases made in some FFL gun shops along the southern US border are straw purchases, the US govt's botched Fast and Furious operation also supports that likelihood. While the localized percentage of straw purchases is likely high on a national level there's no evidence to support a claim that there is a widespread problem with straw purchases. The ATF is responsible for policing the usage of every Federal Firearm License issued by the federal govt and making sure that no illegal or improper activity is being done with them. It appears that there is ample evidence to support the ATF devoting more resources to monitoring FFLs along the southern border and taking greater steps to prevent straw purchases in that region. I don't know why the ATF doesn't seem to be making that effort and/or why whatever effort they are making is ineffective but the ATF has the authority and responsibility to deal with the problem already, they can revoke any FFL if there's evidence of straw purchases or other illegal activity. Gun stores are already required to maintain federal paperwork, notably Form 4473 and those records are supposed to be checked by the ATF on a regular basis. Everyone who gets an FFL even individual FFLs for personal collections is required to keep records and provide those records to the ATF anytime they ask for them. More intensive policing by the ATF of FFLs along the southern border should be enough to cut down on straw purchases and we don't need any new laws for that because, again, monitoring FFLs is one of the primary jobs of the ATF. I would have no issue with the ATF taking a more intensive interest in policing FFLs along the southern border in an effort to decrease felonious straw purchases cartel gun smuggling.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need more honesty in society and in politics when it comes to laws and govt policies.

**Turnip Jedi**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
I had real trouble explaining this to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, that our police usually don't carry.
"How do they get people to listen?"

I'm in turn not used to a culture where a gun would be required to command attention. It's very hard for both sides to understand.

Pretty much this, I think part of at least the UK system is either trying to not get it out of hand, or failing that Strength in Numbers, most UK Towns are at most 10 minutes 'wide' meaning its very easy to direct a large amount of officers to a location very quickly, even our citys aren't that huge if your allowed to put on the sirens and hammer it (the coutryside sort of polices itself as everyone and their Mum is tooled up with Shotguns and assorted pointy farm equipment !)

**Prestor Jon**

Turnip Jedi wrote:
Buttery Commissar wrote:
I had real trouble explaining this to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, that our police usually don't carry.
"How do they get people to listen?"

I'm in turn not used to a culture where a gun would be required to command attention. It's very hard for both sides to understand.

Pretty much this, I think part of at least the UK system is either trying to not get it out of hand, or failing that Strength in Numbers, most UK Towns are at most 10 minutes 'wide' meaning its very easy to direct a large amount of officers to a location very quickly, even our citys aren't that huge if your allowed to put on the sirens and hammer it (the coutryside sort of polices itself as everyone and their Mum is tooled up with Shotguns and assorted pointy farm equipment !)

What's the common attitude towards police in the UK? I think that might also play a role in the difference between the countries. We tend to have a very cynical view of police with the police often seen as oppressive authority figures. Aside from some small towns I don't think the attitude of cops being friendly neighborhood peace keepers is prevalent at all. That adversarial relationship is a factor in the recent highly publicized fatal police encounters.

**Compel**

It's 5 pages into this thread now and I've still not been able to think up a suitable pun answering the question related to, "with their sleevies."

**Selym**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Turnip Jedi wrote:
Buttery Commissar wrote:
I had real trouble explaining this to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, that our police usually don't carry.
"How do they get people to listen?"

I'm in turn not used to a culture where a gun would be required to command attention. It's very hard for both sides to understand.

Pretty much this, I think part of at least the UK system is either trying to not get it out of hand, or failing that Strength in Numbers, most UK Towns are at most 10 minutes 'wide' meaning its very easy to direct a large amount of officers to a location very quickly, even our citys aren't that huge if your allowed to put on the sirens and hammer it (the coutryside sort of polices itself as everyone and their Mum is tooled up with Shotguns and assorted pointy farm equipment !)

What's the common attitude towards police in the UK? I think that might also play a role in the difference between the countries. We tend to have a very cynical view of police with the police often seen as oppressive authority figures. Aside from some small towns I don't think the attitude of cops being friendly neighborhood peace keepers is prevalent at all. That adversarial relationship is a factor in the recent highly publicized fatal police encounters.

Attitude to police varies greatly. You get a lot of impoverished areas in cities that hate cops because they spend all day watching US TV programs spouting vitriol against US cops, and then misapply that to our police because benefit scroungers are too stupid to spot the difference. The average dude on the street tends to be neutral until thwacked with a baton one to many times, or until they get caught in a riot (at which point the crowd's IQ drops to be on par with the dumbest member).
From what I've seen, anyone who has been helped by cops or knows someone in the police fore tends to be pretty favourable towards them. A good example of this was during the 2011 riots, people would hand out supplies of tea and whatnot to the police guarding their streets:

Spoiler:

**jmurph**

Yeah, if you just watched US tv, you would think that police are just going around willy nilly shooting and killing people. Odd thing is that the numbers we have indicate that police shootings have gone down over the years and generally tracked the overall decrease in violent crime. Yet the left is claiming some massive epidemic (fewer people were killed by police in 2015 than by falling) and the right is up in arms claiming some kind of crime epidemic (violent crime is pretty near historic lows). It's strange- we live in one of the safest eras in American history thanks to both law enforcement *and* more community focused and de-escalation polices, but nobody wants to believe that! But I guess i's kind of hard to polarize people with those facts.
What do we want? Incremental changes to continue systemic improvements!
When do we want it? On a rational timetable that allows adequate rollout and implementation of evaluation systems that can track progress!

**Selym**

Well, you're on the final push to eradiate this stuff then. It's gone from uncontested normalcy to an unexpected and outrageous phenomenon. Hopefully in a decade or two it'll be almost eradicated.

**Sarouan**

Quite interesting topic, thanks for the reading.

In Belgium, we have mostly the same events than for the rest of Europa. Sure, the news make it appear we have a lot of trouble with terrorists, but in all fairness, this is not what happens most of the time. The real trouble is right wing propaganda trying to exploit the fear of people for their own interests, but that's another matter and it's not new anyway.

But yes, talking with respect and showing to the other you're not his enemy solve a lot of troublesome situations. It's just basic communication, so simple that it should be dumb obvious but really, in these times that's something that has to be repeated. It doesn't only apply to police, however. It's handy anytime, anywhere, for any situation.

Don't be agressive, don't try to talk like you're superior, listen to the other, treat him on equal grounds, use facts rather than judgment, don't act on your feelings and keep a cool head.

Just that is enough to solve a wide number of troublesome situations.

If policemen use that rather than guns, it's not really a surprise the results are quite different. But then, of course, the situation in the USA isn't the same than in UK. Still, the results are there and I don't think it's reasonable to just ignore them completely.

**Baxx**

Sarouan wrote:
The real trouble is right wing propaganda trying to exploit the fear of people for their own interests, but that's another matter and it's not new anyway.

In my opinion, hundreds of people being shot, bombed, drived over and chopped to pieces by fanatics screaming religious slogans is a much bigger problem than right wing propaganda.

I'm not saying police always need guns, but I am saying that yearly, monthly and weekly terror is worse than people sharing their political views in a non-violent way.

**Herzlos**

Prestor Jon wrote:

What's the common attitude towards police in the UK?

Most people have a healthy or grudging respect for them; they tend to be decent enough to deal with.

There's a minority who hate them, but that tends to be because in their view the police pick on them, by arresting them for crimes, or taking their alcohol off them.

The biggest problem the police face in the UK tends to be that the public view them as a bit useless - they are understaffed to the point that they can't deal with petty issues, or are unduly focused on catching motorists breaking the law rather than real criminals.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
The real trouble is right wing propaganda trying to exploit the fear of people for their own interests, but that's another matter and it's not new anyway.

In my opinion, hundreds of people being shot, bombed, drived over and chopped to pieces by fanatics screaming religious slogans is a much bigger problem than right wing propaganda.

But how often does that realistically happen, and what difference would it make if people weren't told to worry about it by the right wing press?

**djones520**

Not claiming this site is impartial at all, but it's got the most complete list I could find. Just providing some numbers here, not making any points either way.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm

25,000+ casualties so far this year.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

As of 2013, this site claims there were 60 plots that were stopped, in the US, before they could come to fruition.

**Selym**

Herzlos wrote:
unduly focused on catching motorists breaking the law rather than real criminals.

Non-serious motor crime is usually pretty easy to prove, and is generally a straight-to-fine affair. Probably nets them more money per year than their actual budget.

**sebster**

Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm not hiding my head in the sand or denying that some amount of guns are bought in US gun stores and smuggled into Mexico. I believe that the 2,000 guns per day figure can't be supported by data and was contrived to allow former president Calderon to make a stronger political point. I recognize that 580 is the lowball figure but at least it's supported by data and sound methodology, the number could be greater, is even likely to be greater but 580 is still a better substantiated figure than 2,000. I thought you agreed with that.

Honestly I think whether it 580 or 2,000 guns a day, it is still a huge number of guns and more than enough to keep the cartels in business, when you remember that unlike the US guns aren't often disposed of after a shooting.

The Mexican govt isn't sending guns to the ATF to be traced as a sampling, they're sending them to get confirmation. The 87% figure isn't accurate in regards to the percentage of the total of confiscated arms that are sourced to US gun stores.

Ah, fair enough. I misread.

One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.

Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.

That prompted a "sensitive" cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted" into criminal hands.

And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable.

Sure, but that's a single story about one group of rifles. It isn't relevant in the scheme of the 200k+ weapons that are going in to the US each year, at a minimum.

You go on the mention increasing weapons sales direct to the Mexican government, and maybe a worryingly high percentage are onsold to cartels. That's possible. But the high point you give is 18k, so if every single one of those guns was onsold to the cartels then it'd be 9% of the minimum number crossing the border.

It might be a problem and there's an argument that the US government should discontinue the sale of guns... but it is still a fraction of the problem of civilian guns being bought and smuggled across the border.

With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.

The drug war has effectively been over for about 5 years. There's still a really high murder rate, of course, but the almost open warfare ended around 2011/2012.

The ATF is responsible for policing the usage of every Federal Firearm License issued by the federal govt and making sure that no illegal or improper activity is being done with them. It appears that there is ample evidence to support the ATF devoting more resources to monitoring FFLs along the southern border and taking greater steps to prevent straw purchases in that region. I don't know why the ATF doesn't seem to be making that effort and/or why whatever effort they are making is ineffective but the ATF has the authority and responsibility to deal with the problem already, they can revoke any FFL if there's evidence of straw purchases or other illegal activity.

As I understand, and I may be wrong, but the ATF is very limited in its ability to look at patterns in individual users. They can't go and collect purchase warrants for an entire region, for instance. They need a warrant to access the purchase records of individuals. This prevents them from performing any kind of stats review to pick out and red flag individuals with suspicious behaviour.

**Prestor Jon**

Sebster,

While 200,000 guns is a lot of guns it's only 1% of the estimated 17.5 million new guns that were purchased by private citizens in the US last year. Localized to the south west that 1% can be a decent chunk of gun store sales but nationally it's tiny fraction of our gun sales, 99% of guns sold by stores don't end up Mexico.

The story done by CBS in 2011 shows how the State Dept drastically increased the number of guns authorized to be sold by private manufacturers to the Mexican govt. In 2006 it was 2,500 and in 2009 it was 18,700. Then during the height of the drug war violence the State Dept, under SecState Clinton stopped disclosing the number of guns that US manufacturers were allowed to sell to the Mexican govt. We don't know how many guns were sold but the amount was growing exponentially and a quarter of the guns were going missing. The number of guns getting into cartel hands from those govt sales probably isn't a majority of the 200,000 annual figure but it could be a significant portion.

The ATF oversees the proper usage of every Federal Firearms License it issues. They have the right to conduct inspections and audits on ant gun store at any time and check their paperwork including the forms filled out by buyers. Those audits could reveal purchase patterns of individuals buying an inordinate number of guns or suspicious numbers of certain types of guns being sold. There seems to be ample evidence that such audits should be routinely done by the ATF at gun stores along the border in places like El Paso.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
The ATF deliberately let straw purchases happen in Arizona supposedly to help build criminal cases against cartel leaders. Gun store owners reported suspicious activity and probable straw purchasers but were instructed by the ATF to make the sales anyway. Over 2,000 guns from just a few stores were allowed to be trafficked to Mexico. No arrests of cartel members occurred but some straw purchasers were successfully prosecuted. The ATF could easily do a much better and effective job of combatting gun smuggling into Mexico but aren't doing so for whatever reason.

**sebster**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Sebster,

While 200,000 guns is a lot of guns it's only 1% of the estimated 17.5 million new guns that were purchased by private citizens in the US last year. Localized to the south west that 1% can be a decent chunk of gun store sales but nationally it's tiny fraction of our gun sales, 99% of guns sold by stores don't end up Mexico.

The question isn't 'how many US purchases end up Mexico?' The question is 'of all the guns that end up in Mexico, how many come from the US.' And the answer is '200,000 at least, probably something north of that, which means the US supplies somewhere between most and the overwhelming amount'.

The ATF oversees the proper usage of every Federal Firearms License it issues. They have the right to conduct inspections and audits on ant gun store at any time and check their paperwork including the forms filled out by buyers. Those audits could reveal purchase patterns of individuals buying an inordinate number of guns or suspicious numbers of certain types of guns being sold. There seems to be ample evidence that such audits should be routinely done by the ATF at gun stores along the border in places like El Paso.

The right to conduct audits means you have the right to check that paperwork exists and is in order, so that it can be used at a later date if you have a person you are suspicious of. It doesn't mean you can routinely collect data from paperwork in order to undertake data analysis as part of a red flag system.

And you might be right that the ATF has the power to do more than they can. I have no problem believing that the ATF, like any policing service, has a bad habit of spending lots of resources on big name targets, and spends little resources on grunt work like identifying, investigating and prosecuting individual straw purchases.

But I've also read a lot about the limitations state and federal police have in collecting and processing information on gun purchasing, and I've no reason to disbelieve those stories.

**jmurph**

Selym wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
unduly focused on catching motorists breaking the law rather than real criminals.
Non-serious motor crime is usually pretty easy to prove, and is generally a straight-to-fine affair. Probably nets them more money per year than their actual budget.

Yeah, a lot of people forget that traffic revenues are used to supplement taxes. So, if you don't want police pulling traffic duty, are you prepared to pay more taxes to make up the gap? Usually not. Plus, traffic stops are how a lot of much worse stuff gets found. I would guess that it is the most frequent way that people with outstanding arrest warrants get picked up.

**Selym**

Yes. Roadside stops have brought to justice arms traffikers, suspected terrorists, murder suspects, new murder cases, kidnappings...

If a criminal can drive, he can be caught put by a roadside stop.

**Ketara**

Just saw this.

Pratchett always did know how to get to the heart of a matter.

**Selym**

Can't think of a better way to put it

**Ratius**

Someone mentioned the police in Ireland before, I just wanted to add that the police forces here are so poorly equipped and their attitude is so bad that I have no confidence at all in their ability to do any actual protecting, and that bothers me.

Which is this guys opinion only

Irish Gardai (police) are usually equipped with stab vests, batons and pepper spray. VS a person armed with a handgun or semi, absolutely they are fubar. No question.

However those incidents in Ireland are rare:
population/ access to weapons/ culture/lack of serious organised crime (on a huge scale)/ minimal "lone wolf shootings"/experience from Northern Ireland/ "island" mentality - (how far are you going to run?) /tight nit local communities/quick SDU response/ Irish mentality/outlook on life/ difficulty of access for extrmeists (island)/
However in Dublin and larger population centers we have whats called the SDU who are effectively a SWAT unit.
Also most detectives in Ireland are armed (despite what people think - 25% of police).

Point being, you dont hear about Irish police in serious firefights because of the above the reasons.
And if a serious wave of violence breaks out the SDU come in.

There have of course been shooters in Ireland (CBA to find the links_) and some have been shot but its usually a drunk/disgruntled geezer with a shotgun VS 20 SDU.

Anywho, to answer the OPs question - unarmed cops dont protect their citizens via show of force or overwhelming firepower.
They do it through all of the above reasons. And of course that cant work for every country.

Question: say Russia - huge population, many disgruntled - why no major/mass shootings there? (I know very differnt to Ireland). Or Portugal/Spain/Poland/Italy/Switzerland/Nordics (bar Breslin).

Not sure the answer.

**Selym**

Ratius wrote:

Question: say Russia - huge population, many disgruntled - why no major/mass shootings there?

In Western world, you shoot school. In Mother Russia, school shoot you!

**aldo**

Ratius wrote:
Or Portugal/Spain/Poland/Italy/Switzerland/Nordics (bar Breslin).

Our government and various terrorist organizations have had a monopoly on mass killing for so long that we just don't know how to do that.

"Passion" murders or whatever happen, of course, and they are horrifying things, but killing multiple people on a public place? That hasn't happened in a while, especially after ETA said "feth this job" and disbanded.

And interestingly enough, despite some pretty dark* episodes in their not-so-far past people seem pretty confident in the police and Guardia Civil (our Gendarmerie Nationale/Carabinieri equivalent) with a "solid" 6/10 vs the 1.88/10 for our politicians.

*And with dark I mean DARK, covered in blood and calcium oxide. And not only during fascism, during the first years of democracy they conducted what can only be described as State Terrorism.

**Da Boss**

Just to add to the point about the Irish police - my dad was one (if you remember the Batdad thread about the girl who got tased).

There are some armed police - detectives and the SDU as noted. But they are rarely deployed and very rarely shoot anyone.

This is because of cultural factors that have been explained. It is also worth noting that the police force was set up to be neutral during a civil war and was not supposed to be on any particular "side" - the name Garda Síochána means protectors of the peace and that was the original philosophy of the force. So they have a much more community focused approach.

This is slowly being eroded by overexposure to american culture and societal change, but I guess it's still there.

I don't think such an approach could really work in America. For one, it's just a lot bigger and more diverse so communities are more likely to be significantly different from the policeman who is patrolling there. One of the great strengths of the Gardaí when dealing with the IRA and so on is that they were well known on a personal level in the community and could be trusted by the people there, so they got told things. (Of course the flip side of this is corruption - cosy arrangements between locals and police led to a good few cases).
And of course, the prevalence of handguns is high in the US. In Ireland, there are a lot of shotguns. Single or Double barrelled, no pump action or any that can hold more than 2 shells at a time. Most gun crime is done with sawn offs. But a shotgun that can fire two shots before needing to be reloaded is not as dangerous or easy to conceal as a handgun, so they are not used all that frequently.

It's a totally different sort of situation so it requires a different style of policing. I prefer the Irish situation but I'm not ignorant enough to think it would work in the US.