Shows that good guys with guns do necessarily stop bad guys with guns.
So what’s to discuss? I’m guessing there’s nobody here who thinks it’s OK to go around shooting cops. I’m guessing there’s nobody here who thinks that those who do should not be prosecuted. Maybe we need a poll.
To be fair, I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that good guys with guns will definitely stop 100.00% of bad guys with guns in all cases. That would be a pretty absurd claim to make.
I think the claim is closer to: if there exists a bad guy with a gun who is determined to use his gun imminently to kill someone, the only realistic chance of stopping him is if there also exists a good guy with a gun who is present and willing to intervene.
So the existence of bad guys with guns killing good guys with guns doesn’t really disprove the moniker. Just like the existence of a teenager on birth control who gets pregnant and seeks an abortion doesn’t disprove the claim that getting teenagers access to birth control will reduce the number of abortions they obtain. No one is claiming a 100% success rate, so there are going to exist examples where it doesn’t work out as hoped.
Here’s an interesting one: the criminal involved in the 2018 Trader Joe’s police involved shooting in LA has been charged with murder.
This guy was already going to get a murder charge for killing his grandmother, along with a host of other charges for the resulting police chase and shooting at cops. Obviously the cops had every right to shoot back at this guy. However, I question the judgment of police firing into a crowded Trader Joe’s location and then getting zero blame for catching an innocent bystander with their bullets.
The issue is whether police are more safe or less safe if guns are made easier to acquire… I tend to believe the later.
I’m not sure how it works in countries like the UK where guns are more or less forbidden, but I think that making anything harder to acquire (guns, abortions, drugs, you name it) mostly creates a black market. So I’m not convinced that restricting gun access would keep guns away from criminals, but at the same time, we have a lot more gun crime than other developed countries. It’s a tough issue.
Certainly some gun crime is a matter of convenience. Someone wasn’t planning on being a career criminal but they’re out of work and the landlord is about to evict them so they go and hold up a 7-11 because they can and they really really need the cash.
If they didn’t already own a gun then maybe they’d try to rob the store at knifepoint knowing the clerk probably didn’t have a gun either. Maybe they’d try harder to make an honest buck. Maybe they’d take their lumps and become homeless.
So to some extent we’re probably subbing gun crime for non-gun crime. But probably not totally.
I don’t know how prevalent gang activity is in other countries but I believe that gangs and the illegal drug trade account for the majority of gun crime here.
Do gangs not exist in other countries like they do here? I assume that illegal drugs do.
If you are interested in the UK, it has about 1/5 the population of the US and about 1/15 the number of cops killed by guns (an average of about 3/yr verso about 45 in the US)… There is about the same amount of poverty and racial diversity in the two countries so the obvious difference is the availability of guns.
Is it obvious, though? Correlation != causation
I think if there were an easier answer for this, we’d have found it by now. Making drugs illegal has simply turned drugs into a massive criminal enterprise; I don’t feel like going in circles with my argument, but like I said, black market.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying by comparing across countries like that.
If you limit the use of force/guns by the police the police will advocate for limiting the access to guns by the public. Also, allowing or even increasing the access to guns by the public creates justification for the militarization of the police.
Eh, the UK has a different culture insofar as views on gun ownership and gun use are concerned, and probably less of a “f*** cops” attitude as well although I’m admittedly less certain of the last part… just something I am guessing is probably the case.
I think their cops kill fewer unarmed people per capita, which likely impacts attitudes about cops. Of course fewer cops are armed and the cops probably have less fear about the populace being armed so even the armed ones may be less jumpy.
The first statement of your second paragraph is correct. While police are killed by civilians at three times the rate in the United States, police kill civilians at 60 times the rate. What proportion of those killed who were armed I cannot answer.
That’s a really interesting statistic. Do you have a source for that? Not because I don’t believe you, but because it’s the kind of thing I might want to refer back to at some later point in time.
It’s interesting that it’s just England & Wales. Offhand I wouldn’t think Scotland would be that different, but I could see Northern Ireland being worse than England & Wales.
Possibly - but probably not anywhere near as bad as a few decades ago…
Here is a more comprehensive list that has the UK as an entity. Note where the United States falls, between Iran and Angola.
Thanks. Might be good to take a 10 year average or something.
I was surprised to see Luxembourg so high… until I realized that they had a whopping ONE shooting. They just have a small population to average it out among.
But the list is interesting nonetheless and the US is depressingly high / among some not-so-elite company.