Hacker News Reader

Comment by alehul | Hacker News Reader

American here — we have more guns per capita than any other country in the world.

In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it makes sense that the police wouldn't need guns either.

In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed.

It would make no sense to tell an officer "you can't carry a gun" when both average citizens and the criminals have guns. While the UK undoubtedly has a fine model for itself, it can't be extrapolated to a country where gun ownership is so common.

View on HN

> In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed.

It's a fairly common occurrence in the US for the highway patrol to pull over a driver for speeding, the driver has a firearm, the police issue a speeding citation and everyone goes on their way.

How does that require the police to be armed? Do you think it likely that typical motorists would be willing to shoot a police officer in order to avoid a traffic citation? Or that the infinitesimal minority crazy enough to do that are going to be deterred if the police are armed as well?

Ordinary police officers don't need firearms because ordinary police officers are not especially likely to have anyone try to shoot at them.

The situation is different if they're executing a warrant on a meth lab, but exceptional situations are exceptional and routine situations are not.

It's a fairly common occurrence for me to drive to the grocery store, buy my groceries, and return home without crashing. Yet, I wear my seatbelt for the worst-case outcome not the typical or most common outcome.

Likewise, I wouldn't issue police equipment based on the extremely common case where a policeman doesn't need a vest nor a gun all day and, in fact, on the majority of days doesn't even need their set of handcuffs.

The difference is that a seatbelt or a vest or a set of handcuffs doesn't escalate existing conflicts or cause civilian fatalities.

Or to put it another way, aren't you arguing that all civilians should carry firearms as well? After all, there could be a mugger, or a rapist, or a grizzly bear. Better to have it and not need it, right?

Don't they then become targets? There is a subculture of anti-police thought and behavior in the US (witness this thread). Do the mental exercise: will police injuries/deaths increase/decrease if they were unarmed?

Why would they be targets any more than they are now? If anything they would be less, because you stop getting all the "cop shoots innocent civilian" stories that are driving that sentiment. Meanwhile attacking a police offer would still be a life-ruining mistake, because you still go to jail for a very long time.

Cop killers are arrested and prosecuted in record time. The system throws the book at them and even the book is heavier when the victim is a cop (enhanced sentencing etc) even though the occurrence is rare.

Meanwhile, cops are murdering people with impunity at a rate of about 10x the former.

"Police" is a subculture of anti-society though and behavior and for some reason we keep giving them guns.

Nothing about that scenario refutes "cops need guns". Its a violent society; the police are under attack in some places.

I don't like it; but it's not helpful to shout blame. Have to understand where we are, to drive any change.

Garbage collectors are 3x more likely to die on the job than a cop https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-...

...and garbage collectors aren't armed! Thank you for the confirmation.

> There is a subculture of anti-police thought and behavior in the US (witness this thread).

I don't think this thread demonstrates anti-police thought in general. I think it demonstrates anti-police abuse of power/double standards/hypocrisy and other undesirable issues. It's certainly not littered with people chanting "ACAB!".

Still, to doubt police need the tools that they nationally use, and to keep equating their needs with the general population, is willfully misinterpreting/miscasting the situation. Even a locksmith is allowed tools outside what the public is allowed. Are police to be just well-meaning neighbors with no ability to do more than gently admonish? Witness the movie "Demolition Man" when cops of the future (actually more like therapists) were steamrollered by a criminal from the past.

That's a fair point- such a change might have stricter gun control as a prerequisite (which for the record I think we also need).

I was struck recently, when I saw The Gentlemen (a film about marijuana empires in the UK). Even the crime lords were very averse to carrying guns because it was so illegal. People here always counter with "but the criminals will find ways to get them anyway", but I don't think that's a valid argument.

I think cops should be specifically banned from owning guns, even personally, until every current cop is removed from the policing system and all policies are replaced.

The current system teaches them to be terrified, criminal psychopaths with no understanding of human beings or deescalation. Giving them a gun is not protection, it's culpable negligence.

The people we are letting become cops in America are the exact people who should a) never be handed a weapon and b) never be given authority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com