Gun Control

[Beowulf]

Except that we know that not all stupid criminals will get caught before hurting people. If this saves even a few lives isn't that worth more than pissing off a few gun owners that dislike the idea of not being able to carry a loaded gun?

If banning sodas saves even a few lives, isn't that worth pissing off a few people that dislike the idea of not being able to drink something sweet?

[Jub]

Except that we know that not all stupid criminals will get caught before hurting people. If this saves even a few lives isn't that worth more than pissing off a few gun owners that dislike the idea of not being able to carry a loaded gun?

If banning sodas saves even a few lives, isn't that worth pissing off a few people that dislike the idea of not being able to drink something sweet?

This law is more like a public drinking law, you can still drink, you just can't drink out in the streets.

[Broomstick]

Jub,

First of all, your rule would eliminate the use of guns for actual self-defense purposes. For awhile my spouse carried a gun while living in a bad neighborhood because, being handicapped, he was physically unable to run from a confrontation. As already noted, being armed for self-defense purposes IS a recognized right in the US.

Second, people do not normally walk down the street with exposed weaponry. Most handgun carry is concealed carry whether legal or not.

Third, you're assuming some magic means by which the police become vastly more effective. They won't. In rural areas there will still be a significant response time that can't be shortened due to laws of physics and limitations on ground speed. In cities, there is simply not the funding to increase the numbers of police to the levels required for your scenario. People are still, from time to time, going to have a valid need for self-defense. Granted, that doesn't have to be guns - young, healthy adults can deploy things like meat cleavers and cast iron frying pans - but for the frail, elderly, and handicapped guns really are a great equalizer which is why, over the years of the Great Chicago Gun Ban there were always little old ladies and gimped up old men brandishing pistols and at times shooting intruders. Given a choice between death and jail some people, surprise, choose to risk jail.

Fourth, police in the US already have the power to ask for proof of legal carry. That applies whether or not it's concealed or open carry. If you have a firearm in your possession the police can ask you at any time to provide proof of legal ownership and legal use. Failure to do so can result in a trip to the local lockup.

[Jub]

Jub,

First of all, your rule would eliminate the use of guns for actual self-defense purposes. For awhile my spouse carried a gun while living in a bad neighborhood because, being handicapped, he was physically unable to run from a confrontation. As already noted, being armed for self-defense purposes IS a recognized right in the US.

So? Why should I care what is and isn't a right in the US when other nations get along without such rights and, by most accounts, are nicer places to live to boot? Clearly the right to carry a loaded weapon isn't of some great importance to quality of life.

Second, people do not normally walk down the street with exposed weaponry. Most handgun carry is concealed carry whether legal or not.

So? What preventing people from carrying a weapon openly, it isn't as if that actually chages anything. Now instead of assuming somebody is armed, you know they're armed.

Third, you're assuming some magic means by which the police become vastly more effective. They won't. In rural areas there will still be a significant response time that can't be shortened due to laws of physics and limitations on ground speed. In cities, there is simply not the funding to increase the numbers of police to the levels required for your scenario. People are still, from time to time, going to have a valid need for self-defense. Granted, that doesn't have to be guns - young, healthy adults can deploy things like meat cleavers and cast iron frying pans - but for the frail, elderly, and handicapped guns really are a great equalizer which is why, over the years of the Great Chicago Gun Ban there were always little old ladies and gimped up old men brandishing pistols and at times shooting intruders. Given a choice between death and jail some people, surprise, choose to risk jail.

I'm sorry the policing system in the US is so lacking that people feel the need to be armed to be safe. I hear carrying a gun and wearing protection totems is working well for the people in Somalia. Oh wait...

The fact of the matter is that guns have repeatedly failed to stop the exact sorts of crimes people claim they should prevent. Then, even when guns do work as intended you still usually end up with a dead criminal because of the way self defense laws. I'm so glad your TV/car/jewlery was worth his life, but maybe switch to decafe and try home insurance next time.

Nor does it change the fact that, by the laws of the city they live in, those elderly people should go to jail because they are just as much a criminal as the people robbing them. Thank you for showing me that gun toting criminals killing each other is how you'd think things should work. What's next, geriatric chapters of the Bloods and Cripps?

Fourth, police in the US already have the power to ask for proof of legal carry. That applies whether or not it's concealed or open carry. If you have a firearm in your possession the police can ask you at any time to provide proof of legal ownership and legal use. Failure to do so can result in a trip to the local lockup.

Except by limiting the amount of people carrying weapons they will be more inclined to actually stop and search the rare exceptions that are carrying a weapon that doesn't conform to the new open carry legislation.

[General Zod]

So? Why should I care what is and isn't a right in the US when other nations get along without such rights and, by most accounts, are nicer places to live to boot? Clearly the right to carry a loaded weapon isn't of some great importance to quality of life.

Are you really this stupid? Not every solution to a problem will work equally well for every country.

So? What preventing people from carrying a weapon openly, it isn't as if that actually chages anything. Now instead of assuming somebody is armed, you know they're armed.

It might also just make them a target from criminals that want their gun.

I'm sorry the policing system in the US is so lacking that people feel the need to be armed to be safe. I hear carrying a gun and wearing protection totems is working well for the people in Somalia. Oh wait...

The fact of the matter is that guns have repeatedly failed to stop the exact sorts of crimes people claim they should prevent. Then, even when guns do work as intended you still usually end up with a dead criminal because of the way self defense laws. I'm so glad your TV/car/jewlery was worth his life, but maybe switch to decafe and try home insurance next time.

How do you know the criminal is going to stop at mugging you? Frankly if you've never been in any kind of violent situation you're in no position to sit back and criticize how easy it is to control yourself.

Nor does it change the fact that, by the laws of the city they live in, those elderly people should go to jail because they are just as much a criminal as the people robbing them. Thank you for showing me that gun toting criminals killing each other is how you'd think things should work. What's next, geriatric chapters of the Bloods and Cripps?

Thanks for showing me that you're an idiot.

Except by limiting the amount of people carrying weapons they will be more inclined to actually stop and search the rare exceptions that are carrying a weapon that doesn't conform to the new open carry legislation.

They're already quite limited, but thanks for proving you don't understand what you're talking about beyond a juvenile "GUNS R BAD!" position.

[Broomstick]

First of all, your rule would eliminate the use of guns for actual self-defense purposes. For awhile my spouse carried a gun while living in a bad neighborhood because, being handicapped, he was physically unable to run from a confrontation. As already noted, being armed for self-defense purposes IS a recognized right in the US.

So? Why should I care what is and isn't a right in the US when other nations get along without such rights and, by most accounts, are nicer places to live to boot?

Right, Finland is such a hell-hole, you know? Except it isn't.

It's not whether or not YOU care what is and isn't a right in the US, it's about convincing 300 million people to change their opinion to your opinion

Clearly the right to carry a loaded weapon isn't of some great importance to quality of life.

It's not mandatory. I, personally, have never felt a need to own a gun, and my spouse sold his about 25 years ago when he no longer felt a need for them (having moved to a better neighborhood). It's an option, not a mandate. I don't feel a need to restrict the options of law-abiding citizens.

Second, people do not normally walk down the street with exposed weaponry. Most handgun carry is concealed carry whether legal or not.

So? What preventing people from carrying a weapon openly, it isn't as if that actually chages anything. Now instead of assuming somebody is armed, you know they're armed.

Do you know what the word "concealed" means? It means hidden. Unless someone is doing a miserable job of weapon choice and attire it usually isn't apparent who is and isn't carrying a gun. Your system does nothing to stop illegal concealed carry.

I'm sorry the policing system in the US is so lacking that people feel the need to be armed to be safe.

Only some of us. In fact, most US citizens do not own guns. Nor do all gun owners have them in order to feel safe, many use them strictly for hunting, or target practice. Self-defense is only one reason to carry a gun. Arguably, it's the main reason the right to bear arms was written into the basic framework of the the US government, but it's not the only reason to own/use firearms.

The fact of the matter is that guns have repeatedly failed to stop the exact sorts of crimes people claim they should prevent. Then, even when guns do work as intended you still usually end up with a dead criminal because of the way self defense laws.

WHERE do people get the idea that guns are Instant Death Rays? They aren't. Most bullets fired never hit a human being, those that do are far from certain to cause death. Even in wartime most gunshots don't cause death, much less in civilian life.

The intention is NOT to kill criminals, it's to defend life and, in some jurisdictions, property. If brandishing a gun scares off a criminal it is just as much an effective use of a firearm as if you actually shoot it.

I'm so glad your TV/car/jewlery was worth his life, but maybe switch to decafe and try home insurance next time.

Home insurance does not mean my bones are unbroken after an assault, or that I magically become un-raped after a home invasion. If it were JUST a matter of handing over goods and the people being safe your argument might have some merit, but it's not. I'm far more concerned about defending my own body than anything material I might own.

I'd also like to point out that the last time anyone in my household felt obligated to shoot someone it wasn't because the motherfucker was trying to steal our pickup truck, it was because the motherfucker turned around and was coming at my spouse (who, remember, is physically unable to run) with a half meter long knife which, I suppose, is actually long enough to be considered a small sword. Before you start in on "you said you didn't have a gun but you said you shot someone" the weapon in question was a crossbow (still is, and still hangs on the wall of the apartment). It did hit the motherfucker, but it didn't kill him. In fact, he was able to run off under his own power which made us quite happy as we don't really want to kill anyone, we just refuse to let someone slice us up.

From this, we learn that you don't actually have to kill someone to achieve effective self defense, guns are not the only weapons that let you hurt someone at a distance, crime occurs even without firearms involved, and not every US citizen wants to kill people. I'll throw in that the police reviewed the matter, and checked that we were in compliance with local laws regarding the weapon in question (crossbows are just as heavily regulated as firearms in this state) (It also says something about crossbows in general that when we stated "we used a crossbow on him" the first question was "where's the body?")

Nor does it change the fact that, by the laws of the city they live in, those elderly people should go to jail because they are just as much a criminal as the people robbing them.

Actually, the Supreme Court overturned the Chicago law that prevent people from using firearms to defend their own homes as unconstitutional. In other words, the law was wrong, not the citizens defending themselves. The constitution does trump local laws. But thanks for playing.

Except by limiting the amount of people carrying weapons they will be more inclined to actually stop and search the rare exceptions that are carrying a weapon that doesn't conform to the new open carry legislation.

How the hell is your rule change going to give the police x-ray vision to see who is packing heat under their clothing and who isn't?

[Jub]

So? Why should I care what is and isn't a right in the US when other nations get along without such rights and, by most accounts, are nicer places to live to boot? Clearly the right to carry a loaded weapon isn't of some great importance to quality of life.

Are you really this stupid? Not every solution to a problem will work equally well for every country.

Odd, most of them seem to carry over, at least for functional nations. What makes the US such a special place that things that work elsewhere fail to work in the self proclaimed greatest nation on Earth?

So? What preventing people from carrying a weapon openly, it isn't as if that actually chages anything. Now instead of assuming somebody is armed, you know they're armed.

It might also just make them a target from criminals that want their gun.

If carrying a gun can't even stop people from stealing the gun from you, how does it help you in any other similar crime? Do the rules magically change if they want to steal your gun instead of your wallet?

I'm sorry the policing system in the US is so lacking that people feel the need to be armed to be safe. I hear carrying a gun and wearing protection totems is working well for the people in Somalia. Oh wait...

The fact of the matter is that guns have repeatedly failed to stop the exact sorts of crimes people claim they should prevent. Then, even when guns do work as intended you still usually end up with a dead criminal because of the way self defense laws. I'm so glad your TV/car/jewlery was worth his life, but maybe switch to decafe and try home insurance next time.

How do you know the criminal is going to stop at mugging you? Frankly if you've never been in any kind of violent situation you're in no position to sit back and criticize how easy it is to control yourself.

My nation doesn't let you shoot people just for stealing your stuff, somehow we make due. As for not having been in a violent situation that's nonsense, I've had knives pulled on me before and I'm not wishing I could carry a gun to defend myself. If anything it makes me wish we funded our police better or did more to help people that feel crime is their best option.

Nor does it change the fact that, by the laws of the city they live in, those elderly people should go to jail because they are just as much a criminal as the people robbing them. Thank you for showing me that gun toting criminals killing each other is how you'd think things should work. What's next, geriatric chapters of the Bloods and Cripps?

Thanks for showing me that you're an idiot.

Were, or weren't the old people in violation of the law when they shot their attackers?

Except by limiting the amount of people carrying weapons they will be more inclined to actually stop and search the rare exceptions that are carrying a weapon that doesn't conform to the new open carry legislation.

They're already quite limited, but thanks for proving you don't understand what you're talking about beyond a juvenile "GUNS R BAD!" position.

The guns are security blankets mindset seems equally stupid to me.

[Simon_Jester]

Odd, most of them seem to carry over, at least for functional nations. What makes the US such a special place that things that work elsewhere fail to work in the self proclaimed greatest nation on Earth?

Jub, would it shock you to imagine that France is different from Britain? Or Sweden different from Italy? Or Japan different from any of the above? That maybe a social organization or institution that works in one of those countries might fail if you just blindly tried to clone it in another place, without copying any of the support structure that makes it work?

Why are you so determined to abolish a national custom you don't like? Why do you act like it's so important to "fix" all countries and all societies by applying the same rules to everyone? Can you please explain this in more detail?

What is it about gun control that makes you just assume, as an axiom, that it is right to impose it on large numbers of people against their will?

[Dark Hellion]

Not to be overly disparaging but for Jub and certain other people I get the feeling that gun control isn't about practical arguments at all but about assuaging their fear of guns. Jub, from reading your posts I get the impression that you are absolutely terrified of guns and are incapable of seeing how unreasonable you are being about this issue because you don't actually think you are more afraid of guns than other normal people.

There are a lot of people who don't have much experience with guns to whom guns are vicious death machines that turn normal people into killers and this colors their view upon gun control in such a way that it makes it incredibly hard for people who grew up viewing guns as inanimate tools to comprehend and vice versa.

These kinds of things are why it is very important to find, understand, and question your biases on a routine basis.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yeah this thread just makes me think that brits have some kinda weird fear-fetish over guns.

Personally I think the US instant background check is one of the most effective and user friendly methods of gun control in the world. I wish we had that here instead of our jungle of bureaucratic bullshit.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm not sure I'd go with with 'effective'.

Most brits do have a dislike of guns becuase
1) we think yanks are crazy gun-nuts
2) when did we ban guns? after the dunblane school shooting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
after each school shooting in USA the response is a shrug. we think that that's odd, see 1)
3) even police don't carry here, so guns are seen as the preserve of stupid criminals and soldiers.
4) we have Belfast on our doorstep, where most of the population is armed or has access. See 3)
5) without the mythology of the wild west, there's not much sentiment attached to guns here. They're just big ugly lumps of metal that can kill people, like most tools. see 1) and 3)
6) since most of the population has never handled a gun, a lot of people are genuinely afraid of them, see 5), 4) and 1)

It's not a complete gun-desert though. my old school had it's own shooting range and most farmers still have guns.
Periodically a news story turns up over a shot burglar or (in the suburbs) a burglar who's been stabbed or clobbered to death by a cricket bat, and normally the public sentiment is with the houseowner. But look at something like the London Riots - multiple cities, huge numbers of people and police and no-one got shot. It's a result I think.

[His Divine Shadow]

Just makes me glad I don't live in the UK. Like really, seriously happy that I was born in Finland instead.

[Hillary]

I'm not sure I'd go with with 'effective'.

Most brits do have a dislike of guns becuase
1) we think yanks are crazy gun-nuts
2) when did we ban guns? after the dunblane school shooting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
after each school shooting in USA the response is a shrug. we think that that's odd, see 1)
3) even police don't carry here, so guns are seen as the preserve of stupid criminals and soldiers.
4) we have Belfast on our doorstep, where most of the population is armed or has access. See 3)
5) without the mythology of the wild west, there's not much sentiment attached to guns here. They're just big ugly lumps of metal that can kill people, like most tools. see 1) and 3)
6) since most of the population has never handled a gun, a lot of people are genuinely afraid of them, see 5), 4) and 1)

It's not a complete gun-desert though. my old school had it's own shooting range and most farmers still have guns.
Periodically a news story turns up over a shot burglar or (in the suburbs) a burglar who's been stabbed or clobbered to death by a cricket bat, and normally the public sentiment is with the houseowner. But look at something like the London Riots - multiple cities, huge numbers of people and police and no-one got shot. It's a result I think.

I think a lot of the difference can be summed up thus.

Americans view gun ownership as a right which can only be taken away with very good reason.

The British view gun ownership as a privilige which can only be granted with very good reason.

I am very happy to have been brought up in a country with the British view on guns. I feel that it is a safer country for that - although I completely accept that I cannot prove this.

I also entirely understand that the US will never have a similar policy as it is damn near impossible to either change the mentality of the people or take the vast numbers of guns out of circulation.

[madd0ct0r]

it's not even viewed as a privilage - it's like owning a tractor. If you're a farmer, it makes sense but otherwise why did you waste your money?

[Broomstick]

Consider that even if you COULD institute a UK style suite of gun laws in the US it still wouldn't change such things as "castle doctrine", allowing the use of deadly force against home intruders, as opposed to a concept of "duty to retreat". As my anecdote illustrated it's not about the guns, it's about what is and isn't considered a legal and appropriate response to a threat. Castle doctrine doesn't specify "you can use a gun to defend your home against intrusion", its say you can use any weapon, whether a gun, your kid's archery set, your great-great-grandfather's Civil War cavalry saber, a shovel, or a large can of peas. "Duty to retreat" says that even if you have a weapon you can't use it if the intruder is just grabbing your TV or looting the jewelry box on the bedroom dresser. These are very different mindsets.

We can see this in Jub's reaction vs. the US reaction to the bit about elderly/disabled people in Chicago defending themselves with illegal guns. He says they're criminals, throw the book at them. In Chicago they weren't convicted because no jury would bring a guilty verdict them (actually, in a couple cases that went to trial the jury wouldn't convict, after which the district attorney never bothered to bring another case - even in the most anti-gun city in the nation people weren't going to throw a feeble old lady into jail for shooting the teenager who raped her in her own bed and busted up some major bones).

There is a very different mindset between the two countries, and it goes beyond just what particular weapon a citizen can own. In the UK the attitude seems to be "government will protect you and keep you safe". In the US "you take care of yourself, and only turn to the government as a last resort". This does get back to colonial days when the government in the New World was weak, in some places nearly non-existent, and you had to defend yourself or you'd be robbed blind or killed. In US urban areas there is a slow movement towards "the government takes care of you" because there is sufficient government and societal structure to make that possible. Over vast swaths of territory outside the urban areas, though, government and police in the US are still thinly spread and some degree of self-reliance is still necessary. I don't think most Europeans get just how empty vast tracts of North America still are. I'm not familiar with the nuances of Canadian gun law, but I do know that in the wilderness arctic areas the rules regarding guns are different than in, say, Toronto.

Personally, I think the rules for urban and rural in regards to guns should be different because they really are different environment with guns having different risks and benefits in each. That doesn't mean no control, just different control. Likewise, I have no problem whatsoever with the UK having yet a third set of gun (or broadly, weapon) laws because, again, it's a different environment. What's puzzling is the insistence by so many in the UK that their way is the only correct way, and that everyone else should adopt it immediately.

[General Zod]

If carrying a gun can't even stop people from stealing the gun from you, how does it help you in any other similar crime? Do the rules magically change if they want to steal your gun instead of your wallet?

So you're too much of a dishonest fuck to admit that your own solution for carrying a gun without ammo is useless for self defense? Or do you think criminals won't be aware of the laws as well?

My nation doesn't let you shoot people just for stealing your stuff, somehow we make due. As for not having been in a violent situation that's nonsense, I've had knives pulled on me before and I'm not wishing I could carry a gun to defend myself. If anything it makes me wish we funded our police better or did more to help people that feel crime is their best option.

The UK doesn't have self defense laws? Or are you just being a dishonest little shit again? Oh wait, you are being a dishonest little shit.

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Inform ... lf_Defence

Were, or weren't the old people in violation of the law when they shot their attackers?

Are their attackers charging them? Then probably not. Most countries recognize killing in self defense as legitimate.

The guns are security blankets mindset seems equally stupid to me.

Thanks for proving you're a dishonest little shitstain. Really, do keep it up.

[His Divine Shadow]

it's not even viewed as a privilage - it's like owning a tractor. If you're a farmer, it makes sense but otherwise why did you waste your money?

I guess that's a comment thats easy for you to say. For me though I don't think it's been a waste of money. I love shooting and everything associated with it. Shooting has been an excellent way for me to improve focus and concentration, it's a task that requires patience, calm nerves and preparations. Thanks to my hobby I get out and I meet people (I am not very outgoing so I probably would be a shut-in otherwise), I am in better shape. I have learned so much since I started seriously with this. The actual firing of the gun is like 1% of all that's involved in this whole thing. It's far more than a hobby, it's a way of life.

Without it I would probably still be some single fat nerd playing computer games and waiting for a diabetes diagnosis or something with little motivation todo anything particularly hard or challenging.

And on the focus thing, a guy I know in Sweden has a son diagnosed with ADHD, he takes him shooting and it's one of those few times he gets really focused and concentrated on something for any serious length of time.

[PeZook]

I think that Jub fails to recognize that one of the leading principles of governance is that the Emperor should not (figuratively) attempt to order his people to walk on their hands, because it is pointless, stupid and makes the Emperor look foolish.

It is obvious and indisputable that America has a major violence problem. Don't get me wrong: I'd still rather live in Detroit than Ciudad Juarez, but amongst the developed nations, only Russia tops America when it comes to violent crime.

However, statistics show that the impact of gun laws on said violent crime is actually neglible: when crime-enabling factors are controlled for, the precise shape of gun control laws has little bearing on the amount of violent crime per US state.

So, back to the basic principle of governance: introducing major, sweeping changes against the will and entrenched wishes of the populace can only make the Emperor undermine his own authority by fighting a pointless fight. Worse, even the ENFORCERS of the Emperor's command won't follow it because the social more you're trying to legislate away covers them, too.

So it's pointless. There's too many guns already in circulation ; Disarming the population won't make them go away. And it will make doing all the other stuff that can impact crime this much harder, because when had to ram one hardline piece of legislation through,the people will resist the next.

I will still laugh at how much Americans masturbate to their guns, and how they make up all these action movie scenarios about shooting muggers, and how their police are arming up and talking to you with their hands on their holsters and expecting drivers at traffic stops to start shooting...but I hold no illusions that tightening the screws will help America as a society. Especially if it's done by banning bayonet lugs or fucking pistol grips...I mean, come on. Seriously.

Maybe you could use more enforcement standardization, but that's pretty much an administrative issue.

[His Divine Shadow]

What makes Russia developed, but not say Estonia, Ukraine or Belorussia?

[General Zod]

I will still laugh at how much Americans masturbate to their guns, and how they make up all these action movie scenarios about shooting muggers,

Describing real life situations is the same as describing action movie scenarios? If you say so.

and how their police are arming up and talking to you with their hands on their holsters and expecting drivers at traffic stops to start shooting...

Do you know that traffic stops tend to be one of the statistically most deadly things a police officer will do? 56 cops were killed doing routine traffic stops in 2010.

[Beowulf]

It should be noted that the 2nd amendment doesn't specify firearms, but rather, "arms". Firearms just happen to be the most effective arms available, especially for the elderly, weak, and disabled. It's a corollary of the right to self defense, which is by itself is fairly useless without the means to defend yourself. And the right to self defense is undoubtedly a core human right.

[PeZook]

What makes Russia developed, but not say Estonia, Ukraine or Belorussia?

The fact that Russia makes its own fighter jets?

Russia's part of G8. I suppose you could include the entire G13 or the OECD, then you'd have countries like Mexico or Brazil where violence is worse, but most people still don't consider Mexico or Brazil developed first-world nation. I suppose you could say Russia is second-world, too, but it is (or was) far closer to the first-world border.

You get my point, though. America has more violent crime than Europe, where gun control is (generally) tight, but it's not really DUE to gun control laws.

[His Divine Shadow]

I was just thinking they where IMO about as developed as Russia and all had higher murder rates than the US. Lots of the eastern states seem to have that. The US is having a record low of 4.2 now though, lowest since 1966 IIRC, hopefully it'll keep dropping and dropping until they are hard to separate from most of europe.

But I get your point yes, I was just genuinely confused as to the distinction.

[PeZook]

Describing real life situations is the same as describing action movie scenarios? If you say so.

It depends on the situation. I'm referring to people obsessively analyzing the speed of their speed-draw technique so that they can shoot and kill a mugger who got the jump on them, or shooting the Aurora killer or whatever, which ARE action movie scenarios.

Do you know that traffic stops tend to be one of the statistically most deadly things a police officer will do? 56 cops were killed doing routine traffic stops in 2010.

In the US that's true, because your country is at war with itself. Everywhere else that's not Mexico or Somalia, a traffic stop is the most boring thing a cop can do, and cops don't talk with you while their partner nervously eyes the area with his hand around his holster.

[PeZook]

I was just thinking they where IMO about as developed as Russia and all had higher murder rates than the US. Lots of the eastern states seem to have that. The US is having a record low of 4.2 now though, lowest since 1966 IIRC, hopefully it'll keep dropping and dropping until they are hard to separate from most of europe.

I hope so, too. The problem you're facing now is that while a 4.2 average is a nice reduction, some cities in the US are like freakin' war zones. The most dangeorus city in Poland has 2.8 murders per 100 000 inhabitants, while Detroit has IIRC 30+. When I saw that number I immediately thought of Robocop, because come on, man.

If you guys manage to take care of spots like these, the average is bound to go down some more.