As murder rate climbs, Chicago mayor makes ‘values’ appeal

[MicroBalrog]

Micro, I'm not sure police murders are necessarily the criteria the Brits go by.  For some bizarre reason, they now seem to feel that it is a wise thing to  have a certain squad of officers armed with guns available in many of their cities.  
Maybe they use them for planters.
Or maybe they feel that the increasing violence they are facing merits the arms.

Do you think there's a difference between having a special tactical team available on-hand to resolve standoffs or armed robber situations and having a universally armed police force?

[TommyGunn]

Do you think there's a difference between having a special tactical team available on-hand to resolve standoffs or armed robber situations and having a universally armed police force?

Depends on training.
When SWAT teams were developed, even the regular police force had arms.  Generally the common sidearm would have been a .38SP revolver with a 4" or 6" inch barrel and, if in a car, maybe a 12 gauge pump shotgun.
The SWAT teams were called out for especially difficult situations, like snipers on roofs and bank robberies gone bad.  In these situations even an officer with a 12 gauge might be overwhelmed.  SWAT proved its efficacy over and over again.
But SWAT teams weren't developed because regular officers were unarmed --they were armed, nor did the acceptance of SWAT teams replace the sidearm of the beat cop.  The old revolvers fell out of favor due to the high cap semiautos like the Glock and other similar handguns which held more than 6 rounds.  This was do to a real or perceived need for more individual firepower than the old Colt Official Police revolvers and S&Ws offered.
Is there a difference?  
 
I can't really say.  While the growing "militarization" of the police does bother me, the existance of either armed patrol officers or specialized SWAT teams does not really concern me.  How they're used might concern me; but that would have to be a case-by-case assessment.

[Perd Hapley]

Micro,

Cop killings are only part of the story. You'd have to look into beatings, stabbings, and other situations in which an officer would be justified in drawing a sidearm.

Of course, we could also stop talking as if there were a slippery slope from armed cops to SWAT teams to fully militarized police.

[longeyes]

So what you're suggesting is to arm the police - who are broadly authorized to use force, even to shoot naked men in their own beds and to shoot people carrying chair legs - whose lives are not under threat in a major way, while keeping the people who are actually far more likely to be killed disarmed?

Arming on-duty police is nothing like just letting regular citizens carry guns for their own protection, it's a form of expanding the state's power to shoot and kill you. Excuse me if I'm not enthusiastic - and neither are actual people who live in that country.

Why should British police be armed and trained at taxpayer expense? What need does this fill?

Gee, you mean there aren't a lot of people in Israel walking around armed?  Are they dangerous too?

No, I just think the British people should not have to cower in their bedrooms while they are being robbed because a small pack of psychos have seized control of British society.

Rahm's appeal to gangbangers to think of the children is beyond risible, more so because he clearly doesn't recognized that in a few years those innocent children may well be gang members themselves.  This is a cultural problem no one wants to examine honestly.

[De Selby]

Who on this thread has called for disarming the populace generally?

There are many, many jobs where we expect people not to be armed or would at least raise our eyebrows if they argued the gun was part of the job. 

Why is it so controversial to ask the same of policing, a profession that is lower risk than many even in places where police aren't armed?

[Perd Hapley]

Why is it so controversial to ask the same of policing, a profession that is lower risk than many even in places where police aren't armed?

Because it would be a really dumb thing to do.

[TommyGunn]

Who on this thread has called for disarming the populace generally?

There are many, many jobs where we expect people not to be armed or would at least raise our eyebrows if they argued the gun was part of the job. 

Why is it so controversial to ask the same of policing, a profession that is lower risk than many even in places where police aren't armed?

There are still "fat tails" and "black swans" in life (terms statisticians use for bizarre or rare incidents outside the "norm").  Police officers may consider their profession to be a "calling" but they want to go home to their spouses and kids at end of shift.  You are never going to convince them that if they disarm, the criminals will too.  And I wouldn't believe it either.
What do you expect would happen when an unarmed policeman encounters an armed, ruthless criminal who is determined not to be arrested and jailed?  Do you expect the cop to kill him with kind words?
I really think many police officers, if forced to turn in their guns, would also turn in their badges and uniforms as well.
After all, as I said, they want to go home to their families and end of shift.

[De Selby]

Because it would be a really dumb thing to do.

And the evidence for this is what?   The low homicide rates in countries with unarmed police, coupled with low rates of attacks on officers?   

[Perd Hapley]

Encouraging people to go about unarmed is dumb. QED.

[De Selby]

There are still "fat tails" and "black swans" in life (terms statisticians use for bizarre or rare incidents outside the "norm").  Police officers may consider their profession to be a "calling" but they want to go home to their spouses and kids at end of shift.  You are never going to convince them that if they disarm, the criminals will too.  And I wouldn't believe it either.
What do you expect would happen when an unarmed policeman encounters an armed, ruthless criminal who is determined not to be arrested and jailed?  Do you expect the cop to kill him with kind words?
I really think many police officers, if forced to turn in their guns, would also turn in their badges and uniforms as well.
After all, as I said, they want to go home to their families and end of shift.

The problem here is when planning for the "fat tails" introduces risks of its own - It might be politically impossible to do here, but micro already pointed out to you that in some places, police overwhelmingly oppose being armed as a matter of course.

[De Selby]

Encouraging people to go about unarmed is dumb. QED.

Well, that's evidence of a sort 

[Perd Hapley]

Correlation is not causation. Don't focus so narrowly on one factor that you miss all the others. IOW, you have a long way to go in showing that disarming police would be helpful.

[TommyGunn]

The problem here is when planning for the "fat tails" introduces risks of its own - It might be politically impossible to do here, but micro already pointed out to you that in some places, police overwhelmingly oppose being armed as a matter of course.

DeSelby, let me be clear; I do not care about "some places."  If the police in Palao or Limbawe do not want to be armed, that's fine with me.  I am only speaking for America.  
Planning for "fat tails" when that event is a bad guy trying to kill you is a wise idea.  There is no way to completly eliminate any risk, but if you arm and train an officer and recruit men and women who meet certain basic criteria then you've probably done as much as humanly possible to minimize risks.
Training changes, tactics will change, tools will change, and so forth.  
But I still think that the American police officer will always be armed.
When phasers are invented, they may incorporate a "stun" setting so the perp is immediatly immobilized without being killed or vaporized ..... but let's leave weapons of the 25th century out of the discussion for now, OK?

[MicroBalrog]

Gee, you mean there aren't a lot of people in Israel walking around armed?  Are they dangerous too?

No, there aren't. Israel has worse gun control than England.

I know. I live here. Why do you think I am unarmed?

Encouraging people to go about unarmed is dumb. QED.

Therefore they should be armed and trained at the taxpayer expense, and also have broad authority to shoot me.

[TommyGunn]

No, there aren't. Israel has worse gun control than England.

I know. I live here. Why do you think I am unarmed?


Therefore they should be armed and trained at the taxpayer expense, and also have broad authority to shoot me.

Are you frightened at police who have a "broad authority to shoot" you?  Do you regularly participate in activities which would cause the police to shoot you?  

[roo_ster]

Are you frightened at police who have a "broad authority to shoot" you?  Do you regularly participate in activities which would cause the police to shoot you?  

Well, I used to go to rough parts of town and help out at mission churches and lend a hand alongside drug addicts.  That was enough to get a minister killed by some cops.  We even had a thread about it here on APS.

I also go to Costco every once in a while.

[Perd Hapley]

Therefore they should be armed and trained at the taxpayer expense, and also have broad authority to shoot me.

Well, none of those things follow from the observation that I made, so - huh? 

[MicroBalrog]

Are you frightened at police who have a "broad authority to shoot" you?  Do you regularly participate in activities which would cause the police to shoot you?  

Yeah, if you've got nothing to hide, why care about expanded state authority?

[MicroBalrog]

Well, none of those things follow from the observation that I made, so - huh? 

We're speaking of the concept of armed police.

Armed police are not the same as armed civilians. Armed police are armed and trained at the expense of the general public, and usually have broader authority to use force than the general public.

Is that not true?

[Perd Hapley]

We're speaking of the concept of armed police.

Armed police are not the same as armed civilians. Armed police are armed and trained at the expense of the general public, and usually have broader authority to use force than the general public.

Is that not true?

No, that is not true.

Parts of that are true in some places.

[MicroBalrog]

It's specifically true in England that police have far broader authority to use force than the average Englishman.

[Perd Hapley]

That seems like a problem. Problems should be addressed. This seems like a problem of attitudes and laws relating to the use of force. But if training people to use firearms is the problem, then we had better institute stricter gun controls. That is where your argument is going, whether you realize it or not.

[MicroBalrog]

That seems like a problem. Problems should be addressed. This seems like a problem of attitudes and laws relating to the use of force. But if training people to use firearms is the problem, then we had better institute stricter gun controls. That is where your argument is going, whether you realize it or not.

And yet, England had the idea of disarmed police at a time where every citizen of England was armed and the government organized shooting clubs to encourage people to shoot rifles. There was a time in England where military forces were ordered to disarm when traveling in-country. This was not done because the people who made those rules hated guns. These rules were made by people who loved guns.

The fact is that there are many things that I do not trust the government to be able to do that I fully trust individuals to be able to do.

[Perd Hapley]

And now the British have excessive gun control.

[TommyGunn]

Yeah, if you've got nothing to hide, why care about expanded state authority?

   What "expanded?"  The police here in America have been armed since waaaaaaaaay before I was born.  Even Andy of Mayberry had a gun. 
I don't care what you're hiding.
Just DON'T let it out of the cage when I'm in the same room!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!