Guns: how much longer will it take ....

This whole state of affairs seems to start with the accessibility of guns (and the number of people carrying them in public, criminal or otherwise)

Your point was that these mistaken shootings by police are due to everyone being in fear for their lives.

Since guns are not the cause of people being killed, they are not the cause of everyone being in fear for their lives.

In any event, I had thought all parts of this were obvious: Police being in excessive and increasing fear for their lives, which stems from:
-the number and accessibility of firearms in the US populace & criminal element, and
- is exacerbated by the distance + ease of killing granted by firearms, and
- is driven by the number of people using them against police.

In terms of distance & ease of killing granted by firearms - this is the major difference between a firearm and a knife. This too should be obvious, which is why the firearm is the weapon of choice among criminals, and the saying 'never bring a knife to a gun fight':

- A motorist intercepted by a police officer, who is still in his/her a car and has a knife isn't anywhere near as able to kill a police officer as a motorist in a car with a gun. Aren't a lot of your police officers killed in such intercepts by firearms?

- a criminal 10m away with a knife isn't the threat to an officers life that a criminal 10m away with a pistol is (so, with a knife - less likelihood of being shot, less excuses for murder <if corrupt>, less suspicion / anger / more trust from public, safer police, less trigger happy police)

- it is the threat of a firearm, rather than a knife, that results in police shooting people from a greater distance (so, with a knife - less likelihood of being shot, less excuses for murder <if corrupt>, less suspicion / anger / more trust from public, safer police, less trigger happy police)

The the advantages of distance & ability to kill of a firearm over a knife aren't deniable. They must, and do play a part in officers fears.

So if you return and look at my original post (regarding this conversation), you will see that the slowly deteriorating situation does start with the number & accessibility of firearms in particular.

Were it knives, the initial situation would not be the same as criminals are less likely to attack a gun wielding officer with a knife (again, never bring a knife to a gun fight), which results in much less trigger happy police

As an example of the difference in situation, based on the difference in gun cultures:
- Australian
- New Zealand
- UK
Police Officers don't wear body armour (any visit to the countries, or even viewing news or TV shows will tell you this). I don't have any knowledge of other countries police forces, I have neither visited others, nor seen their news or TV.

None of those countries have the firearms accessibility issues that the US has.

These countries too have minority cultures, and none of those cultures are in fear like in the U.S. I've run into 2 different well spoken african americans (by that I mean, they were educated, spoke well, and appeared quite law abiding) who were in fear of your police. I found it surprising the first time, not quite so the second.

Except police fear of being killed doesn't stem from that. Police officers would be just as dead if they were murdered with some other kind of weapon.

Police do not maintain a perpetual distance from other people however. Close contact is required as part of their job. If police did not need to worry about danger from a distance, they would still need to worry about being killed from up close.

Plus, there are other ways of attacking from a distance. Bows and arrows, for instance. Or even just rocks thrown from a sling.

Probably the greatest fear that police would have in that situation would be that a criminal would wrestle their gun away from them and kill them with their own gun.

I disagree. I think criminals would be just as likely to attack police officers, either with a knife or with the police officer's own gun.

Those countries have a strong social safety net and lower poverty levels, leading to less crime overall.

Oralloy, you obviously feel a need to bend some facts, and avoid certain other facts.

Name the weapon (but considering below - I should specify, something that criminals would actually be likely to carry)

You did not comment on officers getting shot by people in cars they've intercepted.

Uh, dude, seriously? How many criminals would actually carry such weapons. And where do I start to make a mockery of this nonsense?

Angry cop hating drunk being intercepted, still sitting the driver's seat: Wait officer , let me jusht get my conshealed bow & agrow out of the back ssheat , so that I can shoot joo...damn the bottom of sha bow is hitting me in me knackers ... uh, sha draw is rarsher awkward... and would shoo stop pushing tha arrowhead out of shor face...I'm trying to put the arrow in your faysh...wait, let me try and draw the damn shing again !

Seriously? That's not even mentioning all the wannabe gangsters that want to carry them.

What situation?

Try and find stats from countries that don't have the gun problem your country does. Your scenario is very limited. It exists, but it's limited.

And remember, this discussions end point is about:
- officers fears, leading to
- triggerhappiness (and the out's that accepted triggerhappines brings for the rogue officer who murders)
- loss of trust / hate by public, leading to
- extra anxiety & trigger happiness...etc

Odd. Have a look at Nationmaster. It offers lots of interesting stats. NZ is just below the US on the table of violent crime.

Despite Best Anti-Gun Effort, Gun Sales Hit Record Numbers Again

- You avoided situations where police actually get murdered, discarding them as irrelevant to police fears. This is blatant avoidance.

- you proposed situations that are in the minority of police murders, saying they would then happen in the same amount (if firearms weren't available) and contribute to the same level of fear that police feel.

This is nonsense. And not supported by stats from any comparable country.

- You proposed weapons (seriously, bows and arrows, slings?) that do not get used, and still would not get used even if firearms were not available, implying they would get used and contribute to the same level of fear felt by police. This is just ridiculous.

- You avoided providing stats that I requested You said "I disagree. I think criminals would be just as likely to attack police officers, either with a knife or with the police officer's own gun. I said "Try and find stats from countries that don't have the gun problem your country does. Your scenario is very limited. It exists, but it's limited.". You then provided stats, but not at all related to what I asked for, instead providing different stats...this too is blatant avoidance.

- Even in doing so, You compared places that bear the least cultural/economic/governmental sytem/crime comparison to the US, avoiding places with the greatest comparison (that would be Canada, Australia, UK, NZ, followed perhaps by the more western European countries). this too is blatant avoidance.

Here in Australia, police officers don't pull guns on regular, or even irregular traffic stops. It is so rare that you only ever hear about it when they are pulling over someone on the run who is known to be armed.

We had one idiot copper who pulled a gun on a person who simply wouldn't pull over. There's footage of him on his own dashcam doing so. He got charged with assault and deprivation of liberty. Funnily enough it was in the news yesterday, so here's a link.

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/stephen-flanagans-appeal-on-assault-and-deprivation-of-liberty-convictions-dismissed/news-story/02ce766a75adbac284c329d50acbf780

The point is that police feel so comparatively safe here, that pulling a gun during a traffic stop is a big deal for them, and for the community, and they want to know why.

There's a reason they feel so comparatively safe where, and you're avoiding it.

Just like you avoided my response to your claim that it was the crime difference - when pointed out that NZ was just below US in violent crime you had nothing to say. NZ police by the way, don't carry guns, last I heard.

I don't believe I've avoided this. I believe I confronted it directly.

I disagree. Stats are very clear that gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

I strongly disagree that those countries are not comparable to the US. They are populated with the same species of human beings that we are.

Human history is very clear that such weapons do in fact get used when guns are not available.

I'm not avoiding it. The reason is that Australia has a much lower level of poverty, leading to a much lower crime rate.

I don't see any relevance to the fact that they are just below us in violent crime. It probably just means that they have some areas with a high poverty level.

You are not contributing in good faith.

You have not. You've skipped around it at every opportunity.

The rate of murders of police officers in the US from traffic intercepts would drop if guns were not so numerous & accessible.

It's much harder to murder a police officer from a driver seat with a knife than it is with a gun (instead trying to show general populace stats). That is simple common sense. But you never acknowledge this.
You instead propose "it would happen elsewhere (implied: in the same numbers)".

This is not supported by any available stat that that you can produce. You know this, and try to divert around it. That is not behaving in good faith.

This specific conversation is about homicide rates against police officers, not the general public. This is very obvious, and not something you are participating in good faith in.

You happily say 'but they don't have the same crime rate', implying that those comparatives I mentioned are relevant...but when such comparable situations don't suit you, you ignore them, claiming them irrelevant. This is a double standard on 'supporting evidence', and shows yet again, that you are not participating in good faith.

Yep. It shows that knives become weapon of choice. You cannot help but know this. So again, an argument not in good faith.

Even at the extreme, your proposition is plain ludicrous. You cannot hide a bow and arrow. You can't pull it out of your jacket, your shirt, or your pants. You cannot use it from within a car. You cannot walk around in public with one without drawing attention to yourself. etc. etc. It takes a great deal more skill to use than a gun. The intended victim has a better chance to avoid an arrow than a bullet etc. It will never be weapon of choice for criminals, even in the absence of firearms.

You know this. So again, this shows you are not conversing in good faith.

I'm pretty sure you've discussed crime rates before, pointing out that Australia had higher rates of burglaries and rapes.

In your very previous sentence, you complained that the US had higher crime, and that is why Australian police felt safer than US Police, then when it is pointed out NZ has almost the same violent crime, you complain that the violent crime rate is irrelevant....a blatant double standard that again, highlights your lack of participation in good faith.

You say you don't avoid anything, while blatantly doing so. Claiming principles to support you, then avoiding them when convenient. It makes for an impossible conversation.

As we've had this conversation about this behaviour several times now, and you continue to engage in the same intellectual dishonesty, it seems unlikely to me that we can have any productive conversation

What am I supposedly avoiding? I am addressing every one of your points.

This is the problem. You are not addressing - what you are doing is providing responses ....responses that largely contain erroneous comparison,

diversionary tactics, avoidance,

and intellectual dishonesty.