Should police have guns?

[Stevicus]

Recently Chicago police killed an innocent man who had detained a mass shooter.

This is followed by a recent killing of an innocent man in a mall who police wrongly supposed was a shooter in a recent event in Alabama.

Family demands answers after police kill man mistaken for shooter of 2 at mall - CNN

We can find other instances of the police killing innocents. So, I wonder, should we take away all police officers guns?

I see guns and the technology used to create them as a genie which is already out of the bottle. I don't think taking away the police officers' guns as something that will happen anytime soon. Nor do I think it's feasible to remove all the guns from the civilian population either. The key focus should be on making police departments accountable and transparent in how they operate, as well as putting greater focus on mental health and other social services to help those who are troubled.

Until we start changing our ways as a society, we're just going to have to accept that these things are going to continue to happen.

I don't worry about it personally, since I don't give anyone any cause to shoot me, not the police nor any armed civilians. I suppose there's a remote possibility I could end up as an innocent bystander in some mass shooting incident, but I see it as extremely unlikely - not enough to put much energy into worrying about.

 

[esmith]

I don't worry about it personally, since I don't give anyone any cause to shoot me, not the police nor any armed civilians. I suppose there's a remote possibility I could end up as an innocent bystander in some mass shooting incident, but I see it as extremely unlikely - not enough to put much energy into worrying about.

The only problem is there are those that do not need a reason to shoot you. Your best protection is situational awareness and that is not a guarantee. However you are right about the possibility of getting into a situation that would put you in harms way, but then again there is always that possibility. You are more likely to be killed or injured in a automobile incident than you are in a confrontation with a armed robber, but we all, or should, drive defensively so why not use the same philosophy in your everyday life. Am I say that everyone should go about armed? No, as a matter of fact unless you have gone through training and continue to train you should not be carrying a firearm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Recently Chicago police killed an innocent man who had detained a mass shooter.

This is followed by a recent killing of an innocent man in a mall who police wrongly supposed was a shooter in a recent event in Alabama.

Family demands answers after police kill man mistaken for shooter of 2 at mall - CNN

We can find other instances of the police killing innocents. So, I wonder, should we take away all police officers guns?

I think two other problems are more significant:

- low training standards in many jurisdictions
- an armed populace

American cops have to assume that any person they encounter is potentially armed with a concealed firearm. This means that every situation is one where a split-second hesitation could mean the officer's death. These situations are not conducive to thoughtful decision-making; training can only make up for this so much.

Short version: innocent people being killed by cops is a second-order effect of the sheer availability of guns in the US.

 

[esmith]

I think two other problems are more significant:

- low training standards in many jurisdictions
- an armed populace

American cops have to assume that any person they encounter is potentially armed with a concealed firearm. This means that every situation is one where a split-second hesitation could mean the officer's death. These situations are not conducive to thoughtful decision-making; training can only make up for this so much.

Short version: innocent people being killed by cops is a second-order effect of the sheer availability of guns in the US.

The problem with your last statement is that I do not see any possibility of removing firearms from the populace. Therefore the answer is more training and quality training for police officers and the problem with that is that it cost money to do so and most state, county, and city governments are not willing to spend the money to increase the quality and frequency of training.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If one side (the police) have guns, the other side (criminals) will arm themselves more - everyone loses.
I am proud of the UKs attitude of not arming the police.

In the US, with "castle doctrine," "stand your ground," concealed carry, etc., as well as easy access to firearms for rival criminals, criminals will still feel the need to arm themselves no matter what the police do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with your last statement is that I do not see any possibility of removing firearms from the populace.

It's certainly possible. All it would take is the political will to do it and a constitutional amendment. Australia did it.

I think what you mean is that the American people are unwilling to take effective action, not that effective action is impossible.

In the meantime, though, there's no law against focusing the public discourse on the underlying problem: the gun industry and the gun lobby.

Therefore the answer is more training and quality training for police officers and the problem with that is that it cost money to do so and most state, county, and city governments are not willing to spend the money to increase the quality and frequency of training.

... and ironically, there's a high correlation between being unwilling to pay for better training to improve the situation (somewhat) and supporting the gun policies that led to the situation in the first place.

 

[Curious George]

I think two other problems are more significant:

- low training standards in many jurisdictions
- an armed populace

American cops have to assume that any person they encounter is potentially armed with a concealed firearm. This means that every situation is one where a split-second hesitation could mean the officer's death. These situations are not conducive to thoughtful decision-making; training can only make up for this so much.

Short version: innocent people being killed by cops is a second-order effect of the sheer availability of guns in the US.

Why do police need to assume that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do police need to assume that?

Because the United States has more guns than people.

Because about 7% of American police officers are injured on the job every year and 108 are killed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Recently Chicago police killed an innocent man who had detained a mass shooter.

This is followed by a recent killing of an innocent man in a mall who police wrongly supposed was a shooter in a recent event in Alabama.

Family demands answers after police kill man mistaken for shooter of 2 at mall - CNN

We can find other instances of the police killing innocents. So, I wonder, should we take away all police officers guns?

Better training & monitoring of cops is the way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Soooo...are you saying police should not have back yard swimming pools?

I think @Thief is saying that if we get get rid of guns, we won't be allowed to have proper fencing around pools.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because the United States has more guns than people.

Because about 7% of American police officers are injured on the job every year and 108 are killed.

Policing is still less dangerous than fishing, farming, driving,
roofing, flying, logging, trash collecting, & landscaping.

 

[Curious George]

Because the United States has more guns than people.

Because about 7% of American police officers are injured on the job every year and 108 are killed.

Except the majority of those deaths are not from intentional shootings. And the injuries include car accidents and regular workplace injuries. You will find that people injure themselves in physically demanding jobs.

 

[Curious George]

Better training & monitoring of cops is the way.

I think that is a reasonable way to approach the subject once one recognizes that guns are effective and sometimes necessary tools.

 

[esmith]

It's certainly possible. All it would take is the political will to do it and a constitutional amendment. Australia did it.

I think what you mean is that the American people are unwilling to take effective action, not that effective action is impossible.

In the meantime, though, there's no law against focusing the public discourse on the underlying problem: the gun industry and the gun lobby.


... and ironically, there's a high correlation between being unwilling to pay for better training to improve the situation (somewhat) and supporting the gun policies that led to the situation in the first place.

and what policies would that be?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Policing is still less dangerous than fishing, farming, driving,
roofing, flying, logging, trash collecting, & landscaping.

That's right, but irrelevant. While a trash collector, say, might have to react in a split second to a traffic hazard, when he reacts too hastily, nobody dies; all that happens is that the garbage collection takes a few seconds more.

And when something goes wrong in an airplane, there's generally enough time to go through an optimized checklist to help the pilots respond in an appropriate way.

But more to the point, a police officer doesn't think that he has the most dangerous job ever to recognize that he can find himself in situations where his life is in danger, and the job is fairly unique in that it can require split-second decisions where a misjudgment either way can be fatal.

In most professions, there's nothing inherent in the job itself that would prevent a person from stopping and defaulting to a "safe" option. The employer may not be friendly to it, but if a factory worker thinks a co-worker might be in danger, they can hit the e-stop just in case and nothing bad will happen (other then a bit of down time on the line). A cop trying to decide whether a person is an innocent bystander or about to pull a gun and shoot him has no "just in case" safe option.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

and what policies would that be?

Off the top of my head...

Widespread availability of firearms, especially so-called "self-defense" weapons.

Allowing public carry, both open and concealed.

Generally, policies that encourage or sanction "defensive use" of firearms, including castle doctrine, "stand your ground" laws, and firearm storage rules that prioritize quick access over safety.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except the majority of those deaths are not from intentional shootings.

This year, 48 of 134 American police officer deaths were due to non-accidental gunfire, so no: not the majority; just the largest category:

The Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)

And the injuries include car accidents and regular workplace injuries. You will find that people injure themselves in physically demanding jobs.

As noted in the USA Today article I linked to:

• Most common accident: Intentional injury by other person

Unfortunately, I can't find stats that break this down further.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's right, but irrelevant.

Oh, really?
I say it puts the job of policing in a useful perspective.
To see one's job as being less dangerous than may trades could curb the
common exaggerated fear that their profession is so dangerous (to themselves).
A better perspective could curb violent over-reaction to interacting with
the populace. Then they might be less dangerous to us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, really?
I say it puts the job of policing in a useful perspective.
To see one's job as being less dangerous than may trades could curb the
common exaggerated fear that their profession is so dangerous (to themselves).
A better perspective could curb violent over-reaction to interacting with
the populace. Then they might be less dangerous to us.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to shift your share of the blame away from yourself.

 

[Curious George]

This year, 48 of 134 American police officer deaths were due to non-accidental gunfire, so no: not the majority; just the largest category:

The Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)



As noted in the USA Today article I linked to:

Unfortunately, I can't find stats that break this down further.

Doesn't seem reason to assume that every person is potentially carrying a gun. Unless there is some premise of yours I missed.