Shared publicly  - 
 
Food for thought...

Germany is a country with 80 mil people, and an appropriately large police force to maintain law and order.

In all of 2011 they fired, wait for it.... wait for it...., in total.... 85 bullets.

The entire police force! 85! In the whole year!!

Meanwhile last week in one one incident New York police fired 84 bullets at one person.

America loves guns. No one will ever take them away. Not even the most liberal president. So let's not argue the second amendment.

But you have to admit 85 bullets in an entire year should force us to wonder what we are doing here. Is there anything we can learn to be a little bit different? Not take the guns away, but perhaps something, anything, we can learn to make our society (and police force) a little less trigger happy (even if it is full of guns).

Source article: http://zqi.bo.lt/9kcek
105
34
da CaPo's profile photoMichael Meinel's profile photoMarkus Litz's profile photoMartin Collignon's profile photo
44 comments
 
Good food for thought. That's a crazy statistic!
b reid
+
1
2
1
 
Worthy of imitation.
 
You can start by improving education.
 
don't look so far, your neighbour to the North - Canada has almost as many weapons per capita as the USA but a lot less shootings. Feel a little sorry for the poor moose ending up on our plates :-)
 
What an amazing stat and Germany certainly to be commended. But the rest of your conclusion doesn't follow. What does US police firing 90 shots on a single, unarmed suspect have to do with citizens owning guns? (http://lat.ms/HFLE1J). As Bernd said, Canadians have lots of guns per person, yet avoid the problems, so clearly gun ownership has nothing to do with it. Avinash, I don't claim to follow politics closely, but it's clear from your posts that you are on the extreme left, pls don't fall into the trap of letting your politics cloud your data driven decisions. The real question is why are the police firing 90 bullets at unarmed people in the first place? And what data do we have that explains what it is about the Canadian population that is different from the American that is leading to so many police shootings on the American side? How does this compare to the other neighboring country? What "data driven" conclusions can we draw from that data. Let's dig for the real data that will tell the real story, rather than throwing out the "cops shoot guns a lot-->guns bad" vibe. One thing that is very telling is the example you chose to highlight. The linked article has two stats--84 bullets from police in a "gun battle" and 90 bullets on an unarmed man. 90 is more compelling since it's actually more than the Germans fired, but you chose the 84. Why choose the less compelling data then? I suspect it's because the less impressive number includes the gun battles that appears to make it look as if the police had to shoot so much due to all the guns. But the 90 on an unarmed man? That doesn't fit your narrative. Oh, and saying "let's not argue" before throwing out a controversial conclusion is like walking up to an Asian and saying "No offense, but..." and then saying some horribly offensive stereotype. Saying "no offense" excuses it no more than saying "Let's not argue" robs folks of the right to rational conclusions.
 
There is a huge difference in culture and as a result attitude towards guns. Unfortunately that is a tricky thing to manipulate.
 
Citizen gun ownership isn't the prime issue. Uneducated police are. I hate trigger happy morons that make the rest of us gun owners look bad.

My firearms are to protect my freedom, not solve problems.

Zimmerman is a prime example of the wrong use of a legal gun. This kind of thing causes police to be on edge... A man with a gun, on edge.. Not a good thing. Let's not forget the illegal gun owners, who purchase stolen or illegally imported guns. They too are a cause for moronic Rambo wanna-be cops. The point in an illegal gun, in modern times, to avoid it being traced back to ya.

Personal opinion here, but I think a cop would be more likely of a target to shoot than a civilian, for obvious reasons. I could be wrong though. Cops may see it the same way, thus a cause for their stupidity, and eagerness to pull the damn trigger.

Regardless, great share. Interesting statistic.
 
I'm an American (from a small town) living in Germany (in a city -- I mention that, because this could be a small-town / city difference) but I have to say this: I DON'T feel like the German police keep people here safe.

When the local soccer team plays it feels like there are as many police officers as private citizens in the city, the police escort the fans of the opposing team from the train station to the stadium and back. . . and there's still insane violence on a level I've never seen in the U.S. . . I think, because Americans know that their police defend themselves.

I'm with the people who say gun ownership isn't the issue. I say it's a feeling that the police and the people are on the same side. When you respect the police -- and feel they respect you -- there's no need for that level of escalation.
 
You should also compare how many people die each year because of firearms in the US and European countries. And compare all killings (without firearms) too.
 
the same condition are moving at all over the world
 
Also, German police don't carry guns, but will use a night stick without public uproar. I don't support gun happy police, but I think you should have equivalent comparisons. Don't break the law and you won't get shot at.
 
Tell that to Any number of poor people that were posthumously found to be skin nothing else but minding their own business and were shot dead by police. Ask me for links and I will dig some out for you.

Not breaking the law is unfortunately no guarantee that you won't get shot by police. 
 
i think the first step is to make police accountable. when they commit a crime, and i mean any crime, they should be prosecuted. police shouldnt be above the law. if anything their punishments should be more severe. there should also be accountability by their superiors when laws are broken. police departments need to get back to what they were intended to be....public servants.
 
There are always going to be stupid people and there are always going to be people who would choose to take away freedom to protect against those people. 
 
+Philip Taylor: I wouldn't mind being able to carry here on soccer game days. . . or when the neo-Nazis decide to have a march in my town (they like to 'celebrate' the bombing of Dresden) and the left groups decide to come in to protest their march. . . it feels like every police officer in Germany comes here. . .and the city is still trashed.
 
Coming from Germany, I wished police didn't have to fire those 85 bullets. I hope most people think that way.

Should this be any different in America*, then I'd say this is the reason why America* might have a problem. It's not about guns. It's about using guns to harm people and how we think about it.

*replace with any country, including Germany.
 
Ron Ellenbecker, do you feel the police should be able to carry out their own sentences, like firing 90 rounds at an unarmed suspect?
 
Great debate going on here. Its not the guns it never was it is us humans that's the problem. Maybe in a few more thousands years of evolution ( if we last that long) we may learn to not kill each other. Then we wouldn't have the need to build these tools of destruction or the desire to use them. 
 
It is unfortunate, but you have to realize that the US is a melting pot. More so than any other country, we make it work. It is what makes the US so great. But unfortunately in that greatness, there will always be conflict. 
Onix A
+
1
2
1
 
I just believe it is the training. When I was in the service, I worked security forces. Once a month we had week long classes, one day was always on "escalation of force/deadly force" training. We were told that we must prove why deadly force was necessary. So we knew we couldn't just always shoot first. That is the problem with police in this country, they always go for their gun first, that and the psychological test for these people are not made in the best interest to protect the public. Most police I've noticed are either bullies that prey on the weak, or the weak that now prey on the bullies. No real protectors.
 
When the population is not comprised mainly of sheeple, you need to fire more shots to protect yourself and others.
 
+Onix Alicea : I don't know what level of experience you have with American police. I'm deeply upset by what I saw during the Occupy protests, and, of course, at the idea of firing 90 rounds at a fleeing suspect, because 'fleeing' doesn't fit into my understanding of 'threatening' (interesting question: who pays for damage done by those rounds?)

I've only ever had really positive interactions with American law enforcement--even ticketing me, they were polite and professional--and the Germans I know who go to the U.S. (I teach English mostly to adults) are amazed at the kind of help they get from police. One student was surprised that, when he stopped to ask a policeman the way back to his hotel, he was told to follow him. . . and the officer drove to the hotel and made sure he was okay.

I really think that the thing to do isn't going to be to dump on the police--because if you want anything other than bullies to go there, it has to remain a high-status profession--but instead to focus on what's right. . . and to wonder why our legislators don't react to obvious abuses.

(This is a side-note, but we'd have fewer bad apples in uniform if there were a mechanism to remove the ones we do have: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/reports-reveal-two-new-scandals-in-the-unprovoked-pepper-spraying-at-uc-davis/256058/ Sorry, I don't know the secret to short URLs.)
 
Thanks for the insightful comments y'all. I wanted to stress that, as I mentioned in the last part of my post above, I did not want the focus to be on the second amendment or taking guns away (not going to happen).

My hope was that this data, 85 in the year vs. 84 shot to one person, has got to prompt some digging into what "we can learn to make our society (and police force) a little less trigger happy (even if it is full of guns)."
 
+Kernie Nichols Where did you get that information? Totally wrong. German police officers do carry guns.
+Avinash Kaushik How to make police force less trigger happy?
In my humble (german) opinion, they have to feel themselves safe (well equipped, fully trained, backed up) and as a part of society, not cannon fodder or soldiers in a melodramatic war against evil. And kick everyone out who misinterprets the rules.
 
I was born in Germany, and in my entire life I have never ever heard a gunshot. And I believe that this may be the great difference between US and Europe. Here, guns are seen as what they are: devices to kill. In the US (imho), guns are seen as a kind of "protective shield".

+Avinash Kaushik ; you wrote, that taking guns away would never happen...
I'm a bit disapointed reading that from you. What about OCCAM'S RASOR? Isn't the simplest solution to a problem the one to go for?
Why beat about the bush...?
Country full of guns + laws allowing citizens to use them = lots of bullets being fired.
Country with few guns + restrictive laws = very little bullets being fired.
 
+Jorge Nogueira I appreciate the sentiment. But it is simply not going to happen. Not in America.

Our high bullet shooting rate is only partly because of the guns, but mostly because of cultural uniqueness. Both Canada and Switzerland for example have loads of guns, but that does not result in a high bullet output rate resulting in deaths of citizens of all age groups.

I'm not a gun expert. My hope is that this will prod us to understand our cultural uniqueness and see if we can evolve to something different slowly over time.
 
You can do it, slowly, over time. I've seen places in America (like in the middle of Arizona) where you drive for 3 hours without seeing anything but one house in the middle of nowhere. You'd probably need a gun for protection against animals. That said, when they wrote that 2nd amendment I don't think they had Uzi's, AK47's and Tech 9's in mind.
Onix A
 
+Toby Crowley I'll let you know about an incident here in Perth Amboy, NJ. I was at the light behind a long line of cars waiting to make a left turn. When I see a motorcyclist fall off their bike 10 feet from my car. I was as if some invisible force kicked her front tire. There was a parking deck across the street so I drove my car there, parked it quickly and helped the motorcyclist. I placed the motorcycle in a parking spot so it won't get towed. Police come take the statements, but the Barney Fife (http://goo.gl/w7091) looking cop gets angry and tows the girls motorcycle. So he just cost this women an unnecessary 200 dollars. I couldn't do anything about because if I would have spoken up I would have gotten 2 tickets for parking my car improperly. That is just one instant I can tell you of cops being dicks because they can. I think I can write a book of asshole cops.
 
Darran Kilburn, the second amendment was written for the people to be able to arm themselves against a tyrannical government. if you google thomas jefferson, the author of the bill of rights, the constitution, 3rd president, etc, this fact is easy to find. considering that the second amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government, we should be allowed to have any ordinance the government has. this includes tanks, anti aircraft guns, military sattellite guidance systems,etc. an uzi isnt much help against a tank. there is an outdated argument that the national guard served this purpose. this no longer applies because the national guard is now the army reserve, part of the same government it was supposed to protect us from. these guys think of everything, dont they? and besides, how can they be protecting us here at home when they are deployed in afghanistan, iraq,kuwait, saudi arabia, etc?
 
But I thought we were the tyrannical government he meant? The British. We were taxing you and you didn't like it because you didn't have representation. So you rebelled and set your own government up with George Washington, John Adams et al. I didn't think he meant your own government because your government is of the people, for the people, by the people - it's your government. And it only lasts 4 years before you vote again. I disagree that it should be interpreted that way. It'd be unworkable surely? The government has nuclear weapons - you wouldn't want the guy in the next town to have a nuke? Plus, I think you need to take into account the time it was written. The world was a different place in the late 18th century. When they said "all men are created equal" did that include women or black people? I'm not sure it did. Jefferson owned many black slaves himself when he penned it. As I said earlier, I think there's probably a case for rifles or the like for maintaining the land and hunting etc. I honestly don't think the kind of weaponry that's available now, hollow tipped bullets etc, is the kind of thing the founding fathers would have wanted to see in the hands of just anyone on the street.
 
Have you read anything by Jefferson? Thats exactly what he meant! I think the use of nuclear weapons in a civil war is extremely unlikely. Do you think before you write?
 
Do you Nick, do you? "we should be allowed to have any ordinance the government has" ANY? ANY??? So we're not talking about nukes? So what about Patriot missiles? or Daisy cutters? or surface to air missiles? There's a wide range of ordinance the government has. I don't think you do mean "any" really do you?
 
what protections do you propose from a tyrannical government? what force was needed for the people of Libya to gain their independence? would thing have progressed to the point that they did if they had these weapons all along?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
 
You've not got a tyrannical government though. Some poor black kid has gone from log cabin to Whitehouse. And he's that much a lovey dovey liberal he even wants to allow gay marriage. He's hardly Colonel Gaddafi material. OK he won't be there for ever but you've got legal mechanisms to limit the power of your government. I honestly don't think you need a gun in the house to put fear into government.
 
Germany didnt have a tyrannical government until 1935.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935
arent those legal mechanisms you speak of actually part of the same government that they would protect us from?

"Its not how the votes are counted, its who counts the votes"
Joseph Stalin

our government has been testing the waters for years as to how many of our constitutional rights they can take away from us. the second amendment reads "a well regulated (armed) militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (interfered with in any way). it doesnt say certain infringements will be allowed, and i dont see any limits as to the size or number of arms.
what would the government be afraid of?
 
Good points. The militia bit - is that refering to the military or something else? I think you touched on it earlier. I'm almost convinced by your arguments - the only downside is the amount of gun related deaths, it really puts me off. Does the cost of maintaining that romantic notion out weigh the benefits? Obviously you feel it does. Do you keep a gun because of the government infringements or because of the bad guys out there, or both? Lots of questions I'm sorry.
 
it never hurts to be armed. look at switzerland. every household has a firearm, and they also have the lowest instance of firearms related crime in europe. if you look at the individual state statistics, the states with the most liberal gun laws are invariably the states with the lowest instance of crime as well. and the states with the strictest gun laws are the highest states for gun related crime. would you feel safer if you could own a gun? not one state or country has ever been able to keep criminals from owning guns. when i lived in south dakota the procedure for obtaining a concealed carry permit was to go to your local sheriff department and ask for one. a simple background check was done and that was it. the easiest state in the country to get a concealed carry permit. Guess which state has the lowest incidence of gun related crime per capita? check out this link.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/storyid=3083618&page=1#.T7Lwfej2akc
 
+Nick Ready I wouldn't feel safer if I could own a gun. I'd much rather no one had them. In the UK, generally people don't have guns. Only some police, some farmers and some "baddies" - Would that change if I lived in America though??? I don't truly know but I can say from my limited visits there I must say that I've not felt like I'd feel safer with a gun. Bear in mind I'll have only been to touristy type places like Las Vegas, Florida, New York and The Grand Canyon. If I lived in Compton or the Bronx maybe I'd feel different??? I don't think I'd want to live anywhere though where the situation is such that I'd feel safer with a gun. Maybe it's different if you've grown up with them? I hope to have a house in the US one day, I absolutely love the place, but I wont be buying anywhere where I think I'd need a gun.
Add a comment...