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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its been answered. The US has a major organized crime and gang problem. That's why we need to have armed police, and why they are, justifiably, jumpy.

Other than the fact that has been repeatedly brought up is that this is not really true. Keeping on repeating it, doesn't make it more true.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.

Because cops never know when a routine traffic stop's going to turn into a gunfight.

I'm not sure why this continues to be a confusing point for you.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.

Because cops never know when a routine traffic stop's going to turn into a gunfight.

I'm not sure why this continues to be a confusing point for you.

And that attitude is the problem. The assumption that, as a police officer, you could be shot at any moment. Other countries police forces don't have this assumption, so why does the US, and why do the police and the public believe that this is an acceptable situation? It seems to me that this kind of distrust is corrosive and always going end badly, both with deaths and the militarisation of the police.

You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.

Largely because you haven't brought that point up, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt, no, it's not likely.

It's possible. "Likely" is a gross overstatement.

As for why? It's because we have a hell of a lot more guns than you do. I realize you're pretty blatantly trying to Socratic method your way into some triumphant, "Ah ha! Checkmate, Second Amendment advocates!" moment, but you're gonna be SOL.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.

Because cops never know when a routine traffic stop's going to turn into a gunfight.

I'm not sure why this continues to be a confusing point for you.

So...should citizens then treat a routine traffic stop like it's going to turn into an execution?

You're very perspective. In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.

However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.

The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're very perspective.

Thunks.

In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.

However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.

The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...

For the same reason we have far less restrictive speech laws. We value freedom more than you do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...

I heard it was because we're full of organized crime.

Seaward wrote:
We value freedom more than you do.

I don't know if that is a poor choice of phrase or a genuine belief. If it's the latter it's a rather insulting and inflammatory statement. A wider definition of free speech and more liberal gun ownership laws is not the same as valuing freedom more. The US values some personal freedom over other freedoms.

Personal freedoms are the most basic kind, and the most important.

Seaward wrote:


Personal freedoms are the most basic kind, and the most important.

Except when they're against a Republican's views on the world, obviously.

Seaward wrote:
We value freedom more than you do.

Nuh uh, we values freedoms more than you. We values freedom to eleventy-billion-infinity plus one. And if you don't agree I'm gonna tell my dad, and he's bigger than your dad.

(in case you can't tell, I find this comment pretty childish)

Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?

(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)

 Kanluwen wrote:
Except when they're against a Republican's views on the world, obviously.

Republicans can be just as bad on personal freedom issues as Democrats, unfortunately. They just tend to choose different ones.

Or were you attempting to strawman me as some kind of anti-abortion, anti-weed Republican?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:

Seaward wrote:
We value freedom more than you do.

Nuh uh, we values freedoms more than you. We values freedom to eleventy-billion-infinity plus one. And if you don't agree I'm gonna tell my dad, and he's bigger than your dad.

(in case you can't tell, I find this comment pretty childish)

That's a shame.

Seaward wrote:


Personal freedoms are the most basic kind, and the most important.

1) That is a subjective belief, not an objective fact.
2) I said SOME.
3) Your statement was much wider anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?

(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)

Good point. This is heading down a bad path. I will drop that argument now as it's going to get politics soon.

 Ouze wrote:
Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?

(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)

Wisdom.

 Henry wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Here is the rest of the point being made; "They are nearly always a case of negligence—that is, someone fooling with the pistol and causing the trigger to be depressed when they didn't intend for it to be."

I read that. It remains ignorant. I reduced the quote for brevity, rather than that this extra bit alleviated the foolishness of the sentiment.

Your point about department policy on carrying a round loaded was something I did consider earlier, though I confess to being completely ignorant about myself. Is it common, or even a procedure used by the majority?

That there is a clear distinction between an accident and negligence is an important distinction. And yes, most departments train to carry with a round in the chamber

 -Loki- wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.

Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?

Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?

Armed Response Units are not ordinary officers. They're not the police patrolling the streets and responding to calls. They're called when something is escalated. So the situation of a trigger happy rookie in a dark alleyway shooting a woman in her pajamas doesn't happen.

Doesn't answer the question posed

 Frazzled wrote:
Canadian,German and French officers carry firearms. This is becoming anti American trolling.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but there is a certain undertone to the discussion

 motyak wrote:
When a copper from one of those countries shoots and kills an unarmed Aussie in her pjs then I'm sure those countries will become more involved in this thread. However, until they do, I'd say it isn't so much anti-American trolling as a continued disbelief as to how that happens in a country and how a large chunk of the population in it can still jam their fingers in their ears and scream "nah nah mate it's all good".

That is oddly specific, tied with a gross mischaracterization of most comments here from US members of the community who are trying to wade through the ignorance and hyperbole directed at those considered "uncivilized"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am making that argument.

As you will see from the government statistics on police in the UK armed police are a small proportion of the total number. They are the special units required for duties such as anti-terrorism or protection of VIPs.

It is completely different to the USA, where apparently it's routine for all police to go around armed on patrol.

To argue about whether the pistol has one type of safety mechanism or another, is as pointless as to argue about whether it was 9mm or 10mm calibre, or a 12 round or 15 round magazine. Those technical details are irrelevant to the question of why US police feel a need to be so ready with their weapons.

If you want to openly admit your intellectual dishonesty who am I to object? I will however call out your error in fact on the "safety catch" comment, and now your moving of the goalposts on this discussion. Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.

Because of the War on Drugs which has helped fuel violent inner city crime

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact that I don't know what type of safety catch is on a Glock or a Sig does not invalidate that basic point.

You mean you shouldn't know enough about to topic to intelligently comment on it?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it not a topic that people would want to approach in a spirit of sincere enquiry?

It is. I look forward to you approaching it in a spirit of sincere inquiry.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're very perspective. In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.

However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.

The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...

Are you back to being an agent provocateur and trying to steer the discussion to US politics and firearms? Strange decision for a Moderator given the history of these discussions in the OT area.

 Ouze wrote:
Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?

(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)

How dare you use logic here. This is a topic we have discussed thousands of times and by the thousand suns, we will do it again! BECAUSEwe WEare AREvery DAKKApredictable!

(but no really this isn't the thread for this stupid discussion, I agree lets move on)

 Henry wrote:
It was Killkrazy's specific point about US police having pistols that don't have safety catches that was targeted by the comments you quoted by myself and Dreadclaw. When it was pointed out by Frazzled that this is the same for British police, the argument became that apart from certain units, British police aren't routinely armed, as though this somehow made Frazzled's accurate point invalid. That's a bogus argument that only attempts to shift the goalposts.
The point is that of those British police that are armed, they too do not have pistols with safety catches, thus Killcrazy's argument specifically targeting US police for not having safety catches is shown to be a bad argument.

No, because what is an acceptable risk in a hostage situation is not automatically also an acceptable risk in a traffic stop. This point should have been obvious. Just think it through - if you have 1,000 instances of officers responding with loaded weapons, and another country where loaded weapons are present at every single police contact, which is gonna have more issues?

That the lack of a safety catch was misleading due to the changed design of the gun makes the issue null. But note I never engaged in that issue, in fact I said I doubted the presence of guns were that much of a factor at all.

And I really have no idea how you can conclude that that logical chain can be the result of bad faith. You really are talking bollocks.

Sorry you feel that way, and I understand how you would feel offended at my comment. But I maintain it should have been obvious that accepting a certain level of risk in specific encounters is very different to accepting that same risk in every single police contact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its been answered. The US has a major organized crime and gang problem. That's why we need to have armed police, and why they are, justifiably, jumpy.

But that answer is terrible. It was terrible every other time you raised it, and data was given to show you how little violence and murder in the US is gang related. Stop ignoring reality.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That there is a clear distinction between an accident and negligence is an important distinction.

Agreed, but that wasn't the conclusion of the article we're discussing. The author made it clear that the only way incidents can happen is either mechanical malfunction or if somebody is fooling around. Those aren't the only options and is a very dangerous attitude to have in relation to gun safety.

 sebster wrote:
Sorry you feel that way, and I understand how you would feel offended at my comment.

Not offended, merely disappointed in your poorly thought out response. Though it reads a little better now that you've retracted the "bad faith" accusation.

Anyway, this tangent has now drifted too far from the topic, my apologies.

Edited. Good points made about moving conversation on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
Not offended, merely disappointed in your poorly thought out response. Though it reads a little better now that you've retracted the "bad faith" accusation.

Anyway, this tangent has now drifted too far from the topic, my apologies.

I didn't retract the 'bad faith' point. But as you say it was a drift, and it isn't going anywhere. Happy to move on.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're very perspective. In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.

However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.

The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...

If thats the case shouldn't we see a correlation between guns per capita and police shootings worldwide?

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.

If thats the case shouldn't we see a correlation between guns per capita and police shootings worldwide?

Nah, it is something with society. Many different groups that don't trust each other because of reasons is certainly one factor, but it can't be the only one.

Some European countries do have different groups of people too, and a lot of guns, not quite to American levels or as many handguns but still respectable arsenals. We've got plenty of hunters as do many others, and the Swiss even require their reservists to keep their service rifles at home. Still much fewer incidents.

It could be some American Frontier "rely on yourself" ideal? You have to be prepared in case the neighbor doesn't help you?

Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality. Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.

tl;dr

we'll take care of the Mexicans and the blacks?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality.

Yeah...no.

Americans, as a whole, do not necessarily have that mentality when it comes to law enforcement.
There is a section of America that has this mentality--along with an overblown notion that they can't rely on the police for anything. That mentality has been stoked for decades now by a gun rights lobby that loves to feed nonsense like "The only thing police are good for is calling the coroner's office" or the idea that "one good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun".

But sure. Keep saying this as though it's a definitive thing.

Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation

Whose drug violence is heavily funded/kept alive by Americans...and, in some cases, perpetrated by paramilitary groups that split off from American trained military forces--or in the case of Los Zetas, they actually have former US military personnel in their ranks.

and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.

You're leaving out the white supremacists and the militias that have spun out from them/are closely tied to them.

I'm late to the party but very much pertaining to this topic is a podcast I recently listened to called behind the gun. Its on www.samharris.org . my phone is not letting me link it direct because I use a podcast app.

Bottom line IMO is quite simply poor training, poor funding for time needed to train, and many other issues. Deesculation and many other things are discussed but all pertinent to the non race related portions of this thread. Changed the way I look at some things but not my desire to see bad shooting punished while still giving a small benefit of doubt until proven guilty in a court of law. Not so much in this case though.

I messed up the quotes. But someone was asking if the chief resigned because of the shooting or the way she criticized the cop.

It was because fo the killing in general.

There is also some political powerplays involved between the Council and the Mayor's respective power over the force. Plus, some of the council members are planning their own mayorial runs and the mayor plans on running to be re-elected. Politics is in full force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality. Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.

Ummmm..... Minneapolis was part of the Union (one of the first to volunteer troops to the Union cause) and borders Canada.

I don't think your comment has anything to do with anything in this Minneapolis shooting of a rookie Somali cop killing an Australian woman who called the cops to the scene in the first place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.

The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.