PDA

View Full Version : Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype)



gunnut
17 Oct 14,, 21:27
Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype)

Vox.com

Max Fisher

5 hrs ago

Americans are inundated with media coverage and politicians warning them of dire threats: Ebola, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the war on Christmas.

The truth, though, is that the most-hyped threats are often not actually that threatening to Americans, while larger dangers go mostly ignored. That should tell you something about how our political system and media can distort threats, leading Americans to overreact to minor dangers while ignoring the big, challenging, divisive problems - like climate change - that we should actually be worried about.

Obsessing about possible threats is something of a beloved national pastime here in America, which is objectively one of the safest places on Earth, so we want to help you do it right. Here, then, is a highly un-scientific and incomplete ranking of threats to the United States — sorted by the current danger to Americans, worst-case danger to Americans, and how freaked out you should be.

9) Ebola

Threat to Americans: If you are an American in West Africa in close proximity with Ebola victims, the threat is moderate. If you are an American health worker in the US assisting an Ebola victim or someone who frequently comes into physical contact with one, the threat of infection is minor if you use proper protective equipment. Otherwise, the threat is pretty close to zero.

Worst-case scenario: The outbreak could get much worse in West Africa, but even in that scenario the disease will remain unlikely to affect many Americans outside of the region.

How freaked out should you be: If you have loved ones in Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea, it is not unreasonable to urge them to take all possible precautions. Otherwise, you would do better to worry about the other items on this list.

8) Your own furniture

Threat to Americans: According to a report by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, just under 30 Americans are killed every year by "tip-over," which is when "televisions, furniture, and appliances" fall onto their owners. The report also found that over 40,000 Americans receive "emergency department-treated injuries" from tip-over every year.

Worst-case scenario: This is America. We can always find ways to make a bigger, heavier, deadlier TV.

How freaked out should you be: Council on Foreign Relations scholar Micah Zenko found that tip-over kills about as many Americans per year as terrorism does, and injures many more. In theory, then, you should be just as freaked out by tip-over as you are by terrorism. Based on the fatality rate, you should be much more freaked out about tip-over than you are about Ebola.

7) ISIS

Threat to Americans: Presently, the threat to Americans outside of Iraq and Syria is extremely low, as ISIS has no demonstrated intent or capability to launch such an attack. And since 2001, the US has gotten much, much better at preventing terror plots.

Worst-case scenario: ISIS does control a giant stretch of territory, boast thousands of fighters (some with Western passports), earn lots of oil revenue, and field heavy US-made weapons seized from the Iraqi army. Oh, and it now has access to rotting but still-deadly chemical weapons. They could decide to use those resources to try to attack the US, or could allow other terrorists to use their territory as a safe haven.

How freaked out should you be: Not very. If ISIS decides to turn its attention to attacking the US, the prospect it might succeed is real, but remote. And even if it did pull off a successful attack, it would almost certainly kill only a small fraction of the number of Americans that guns and cars are virtually certain to kill every single year.

6) The flu

Threat to Americans: The flu kills thousands of Americans every year, many times more people than Ebola. The elderly and infirm are especially at risk.

Worse-case scenario: An especially bad outbreak in 2004 killed 48,000 Americans.

How freaked out should you be: If you're elderly, very young, or immunosuppressed, you should get a flu shot or nasal spray immediately. (Even if you're not, you should still get off your lazy butt and get a flu shot, unless you are some kind of monster who doesn't care about herd immunity.) But if you're young and otherwise healthy, you'll probably be fine even if you do catch the flu.

5) World War III breaking out in the Baltics

Threat to Americans: No one wants a global thermonuclear war between the West and Russia, including Vladimir Putin. But his meddling in Baltic NATO countries like Estonia, which the US and Western Europe are committed to defend, could inadvertently trigger what we avoided throughout the Cold War: open military conflict between the major nuclear powers. Both Putin and President Obama have threatened as much to try to scare one another out of acting aggressively.

Worst-case scenario: Russia does in Estonia what it did in Ukraine, that snowballs into war between Russia and the US/NATO, and the nukes start falling.

How freaked out should you be: To be very clear: the odds of this happening are extremely low. But the danger is real enough that everyone is taking it seriously (Russia is holding major nuclear exercises). If it did happen, it would be many, many times worse than every other item on this list combined.

4) Climate change

Danger to Americans: Potentially dire. The greatest near-term harm may be from a rise in extreme weather events. Over the next 100 years, that could include deadly heat waves, droughts, flooding, and a rise in sea levels that would affect coastal cities.

Worst-case scenario: The world is trying to limit the global temperature rise to 2°C , because any more than that is considered dangerous. A temperature rise of 4°C would cause "substantial species extinctions" and "large risks to global and regional food security," as well as rising sea levels, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, a total catastrophe.

How freaked out should you be: If you care about the world your kids and grandkids will grow up in, pretty freaked out. Averting disaster requires immediate, massive, global cuts to carbon emissions. With the US and China particularly dragging their feet, it may simply be too late.

3) Guns

Danger to Americans: Guns kill more than 30,000 Americans every year, about as many deaths as caused by motor vehicles. But only about one in three of those deaths is a homicide. A few thousand are from accidents but most are due to suicide.

Worst-case scenario: We have already chosen to live in a society with the world's highest gun ownership rate and some of its loosest gun control laws, so the worst-case scenario is pretty much here. Still, gun deaths per year are on the rise.

How freaked out should you be: It all depends on whether you see America's uniquely permissive gun laws as worth the trade-off. But you — and, yes, your children — are at risk, regardless of your views about gun regulations.

2) Traffic accidents

Danger to Americans: Very high. About 34,000 deaths in 2011 (the last year with complete data), more than one in four of all deaths related to unintentional injures.

Worst-case scenario: Drunk driving. Don't do it.

How freaked out should you be: The motor vehicle death rate is declining, but getting in your car is still dangerous. Stay alert and don't drink.

1) Heart disease and cancer (tie)

Danger to Americans: The number-one and number-two killers in the US, collectively responsible for just over 50 percent of all American deaths.

Worst-case scenario: These could become even deadlier as Americans get unhealthier. Heart disease correlates with rising obesity. Cancer rates also correlate with obesity, smoking, and other unhealthy practices.

How freaked out should you be: The odds are that one of these two things will kill you, so you should be thinking about this. The good news: it's pretty easy to reduce that risk by making healthy lifestyle choices and screening regularly for cancer.


Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype) (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/threats-to-americans-ranked-by-actual-threat-instead-of-media-hype/ar-BB9Bujn)

I noticed zombies are not on the list....:eek:

astralis
17 Oct 14,, 21:40
shhh, that's stage 3 of O-bola's plan to destroy America...:biggrin:

gunnut
17 Oct 14,, 21:48
shhh, that's stage 3 of O-bola's plan to destroy America...:biggrin:

Wait, I thought ebola was created by the US government to wipe out black Africans... just like AIDS was created by the US government to wipe out homosexuals... and crack cocaine was created by the US government to wipe out black Americans...

zraver
17 Oct 14,, 23:01
Cops rate higher than ebola, ISIS or furniture. In NYC police misconduct leads to 100 million a year in payments for civil rights violations and police brutality.

YellowFever
18 Oct 14,, 00:02
No Celine Dion or Justin Bieber?

Bigfella
18 Oct 14,, 01:28
No mention of stupidity. Around 250 Americans die annually in level crossing accidents. If you can't avoid a train you probably shouldn't be let out of the house.

Double Edge
18 Oct 14,, 01:37
No mention of stupidity. Around 250 Americans die annually in level crossing accidents. If you can't avoid a train you probably shouldn't be let out of the house.
Once I lost a colleague who fell between the station platform & the train in Edison NJ. Nobody noticed and the train started....

When they told me why he could not come back to work i just could not believe it !!

Bigfella
18 Oct 14,, 02:03
Once I lost a colleague who fell between the station platform & the train in Edison NJ. Nobody noticed and the train started....

When they told me why he could not come back to work i just could not believe it !!

Sorry to hear it DE. Not quite the same, however. Level crossings are about the easiest thing in the world not to be on when a train goes by. Exceptions made for the occasional person in a wheelchair who might get stuck on them, in which case whoever is responsible for construction or maintaining the crossing should be jailed.

Doktor
18 Oct 14,, 11:45
Wait, I thought ebola was created by the US government to wipe out black Africans... just like AIDS was created by the US government to wipe out homosexuals... and crack cocaine was created by the US government to wipe out black Americans...

Some government you had back in 1920's :eek:

Doktor
18 Oct 14,, 11:47
No mention of stupidity. Around 250 Americans die annually in level crossing accidents. If you can't avoid a train you probably shouldn't be let out of the house.

This is what you get when lightnings strike less and less people every year.

Guess they are all grounded now.

bonehead
24 Oct 14,, 04:22
What? no mention of healthcare provider mistakes? That accounts for 100k-200K deaths per year depending on the study. If you have to go to a hospital you should be freaked out.

Squirrel
24 Oct 14,, 14:44
No mention of stupidity. Around 250 Americans die annually in level crossing accidents. If you can't avoid a train you probably shouldn't be let out of the house.

In Australia accidental deaths from falling went from 709 in 2003 to 1997 in 2012...just sayin'...

EDIT: It's also the ranked 17th in leading causes of death for Australia.

Pedicabby
24 Oct 14,, 15:16
What? no mention of healthcare provider mistakes? That accounts for 100k-200K deaths per year depending on the study. If you have to go to a hospital you should be freaked out.

I saw this on Facebook the other day and thought nothing of it as it is just some Facebook post.

38344

Then I read your post and googled.

July effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_effect)

Yikes!

bonehead
24 Oct 14,, 18:15
I saw this on Facebook the other day and thought nothing of it as it is just some Facebook post.

38344

Then I read your post and googled.

July effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_effect)

Yikes!

Yeah That is why they start off in the geriatrics ward…only taking days off instead of years off a life. Many are still doing the 72 hour shifts which is nothing but insanity. The worse part is that when you ask someone in the profession what the greatest risks are not one will mention this, but they will go on and on about guns.

tbm3fan
24 Oct 14,, 23:48
In short fear sells and with human beings being basically irrational the list gets turned upside down every time.

Monash
25 Oct 14,, 02:31
And by way of counterpoint: "What Americans fear most"

A recent press release based on results compiled by researchers at Chapman University using data from a 'fear survey'. Note the dramatic differences between what they fear and actual threats.

What Americans fear most -- new poll from Chapman University (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/cu-waf102014.php)

Oh and Zraver, get over it man, Police? Really? In the grand scheme of things we're no more 'dangerous' than a whole lot of other professions whom you entrust with the safety of yourself or your loved ones from time to time e.g. doctors, engineers, pilots ... emergency response workers etc. Last week a Scout Troop Leader over here injured someone in a car accident, does that mean I start diving for cover every time I see one of them walk by? :)

Squirrel
25 Oct 14,, 04:19
... do I start diving for cover every time I see one of them go by? :)

Just be sure to look before you jump...

Doktor
25 Oct 14,, 04:26
Just be sure to look before you jump...

Explains the raise of deaths caused by falling :whome:

Chunder
26 Oct 14,, 12:25
... does that mean I start diving for cover every time I see one of them walk by? :)

Depends if you think it's like the catholic church or not :confu:

Louis
26 Oct 14,, 12:44
You sure he wasn't knocking a witness monash? :)

zraver
27 Oct 14,, 04:38
And by way of counterpoint: "What Americans fear most"

A recent press release based on results compiled by researchers at Chapman University using data from a 'fear survey'. Note the dramatic differences between what they fear and actual threats.

What Americans fear most -- new poll from Chapman University (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/cu-waf102014.php)

Oh and Zraver, get over it man, Police? Really? In the grand scheme of things we're no more 'dangerous' than a whole lot of other professions whom you entrust with the safety of yourself or your loved ones from time to time e.g. doctors, engineers, pilots ... emergency response workers etc. Last week a Scout Troop Leader over here injured someone in a car accident, does that mean I start diving for cover every time I see one of them walk by? :)

Cops might be good where you are, you risk your life trusting them here. Every day its a new outrage- shooting a dog that had to be coaxed over to the cop, hacking womens phones to steal their private pics, no knock raid murders, rape....

If there are good cops in the US, why are they not arresting the bad ones?

Oh, and if someone other than a cop injures me I can sue them. Cops are protected by qualified immunity and powerful unions and property interests that effectively blunt and citizen recourse and ensure virtually no prosecution for crimes. A 2000 DOJ report titled Police Attitudes Towards Abuse of Authority.... 84% of cops report seeing abuse of citizens and 61% fail to report it, even when it is a serious crime....

Monash
27 Oct 14,, 13:04
Cops might be good where you are, you risk your life trusting them here. Every day its a new outrage- shooting a dog that had to be coaxed over to the cop, hacking womens phones to steal their private pics, no knock raid murders, rape....

If there are good cops in the US, why are they not arresting the bad ones?

Oh, and if someone other than a cop injures me I can sue them. Cops are protected by qualified immunity and powerful unions and property interests that effectively blunt and citizen recourse and ensure virtually no prosecution for crimes. A 2000 DOJ report titled Police Attitudes Towards Abuse of Authority.... 84% of cops report seeing abuse of citizens and 61% fail to report it, even when it is a serious crime....

Z, first off the thread was about threats to American citizens, specifically a study that ranked deaths in order of seriousness/likelihood of occurrence. Statistically speaking 'Death by Cop' is a valid subset of the overall death rate in any country. (Disallowing 'righteous' shoots of course where the victim normally only has themselves to blame.) But then again so is 'death by ...insert your favorite profession here.' For that matter so is death by Chihuahua! i.e. somewhere, some time, someone is going to trip over one of the little bastards and break their neck - does that mean people should stay awake at night worrying over the risk - I don't think so.

That's all the thread was about, risk of death, not criminal offenses committed by cops, not abuse of power by cops, not injuries committed by cops. You want to sue a cop because you believe he has committed a tort, go ahead but your lawyer will suggest you sue the Police Department involved instead, they have money (and insurance). Chances are the cop doesn't - not if he's living off his wages anyway. Put it another way, if you get food poisoning at McDonald's you don't sue the the minimum wage teenager who cooked the damm burger - you sue ass of the company instead. Which is what hundreds of wronged citizens have done i.e. they sued the Police Department who employed the officer/s concerned.

As for the rest, Police do arrest and charge other Police, check the stats, but they still have to reach the same burden of proof needed for any citizen and sadly in some cases cops, like lawyers know how to 'play' the system for all its worth. Go try charging a lawyer with a criminal offense and see how easy it is (I know from personal experience). So if that's your gripe the solution is simple, change your constitution to make it easier to get convictions - and good luck getting that boat to float!

Albany Rifles
27 Oct 14,, 14:57
Well, we know what Ozzies are afraid of....


38358

zraver
27 Oct 14,, 16:53
Z, first off the treat was about threats to American citizens, specifically a study that ranked deaths in order of seriousness/likelihood of occurrence. Statistically speaking 'Death by Cop' is a valid subset of the overall death rate in any country. (Disallowing 'righteous' shoots of course where the victim normally only has themselves to blame.) But then again so is 'death by ...insert your favorite profession here.' For that matter so is death by Chihuahua! i.e. somewhere, some time, someone is going to trip over one of the little bastards and break their neck - does that mean people should stay awake at night worrying over the risk - I don't think so.

In my original reply to the subject i pointed out that cops rated higher than many of the listed threats. Between bad shoots and car crashes cops in the US kill hundreds of innocent people and hundreds of pets every year.


That's all the thread was about, risk of death, not criminal offenses committed by cops, not abuse of power by cops, not injuries committed by cops. You want to sue a cop because you believe he has committed a tort, go ahead but your lawyer will suggest you sue the Police Department involved instead, they have money (and insurance). Chances are the cop doesn't - not if he's living off his wages anyway. Put it another way, if you get food poisoning at McDonald's you don't sue the the minimum wage teenager who cooked the damm burger - you sue ass of the company instead. Which is what hundreds of wronged citizens have done i.e. they sued the Police Department who employed the officer/s concerned.

The problem is in oart that cops play with tax payer money. Doctors and other medical professionals carry liability insurance, if they mess up their rates go up. (hopefully) Most citizens have private liability insurance through their home owners or renters policy (I do). Ditto for most professions... if cops had to carry personal liability insurance that hit them in the pocket book when claims were filed you's see a lot less gung ho shoot first bury the questions later.


As for the rest, Police do arrest and charge other Police, check the stats,

I have checked the stats, its almost none existent.


but they still have to reach the same burden of proof needed for any citizen and sadly in some cases cops, like lawyers know how to 'play' the system for all its worth. Go try charging a lawyer with a criminal offense and see how easy it is (I know from personal experience). So if that's your gripe the solution is simple, change your constitution to make it easier to get convictions - and good luck getting that boat to float!

1. The burden is much higher because cops are protected by unions and property interests. Cops are so well shielded from the legal system that prosecutors here need to keep lists of what are called Brady Cops- cops known to lie on the stand or fake evidence who are none the less still employed in law enforcement. When the system can't get rid of the people actively undermining it, who also happen to be its enforcers the system is broken.

DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/26/da-secret-brady-list-bad-cops/)

SteveDaPirate
27 Oct 14,, 17:52
Doctors and other medical professionals carry liability insurance, if they mess up their rates go up. (hopefully) Most citizens have private liability insurance through their home owners or renters policy (I do).

I've actually wondered if liability insurance could be the solution to the endless gun regulation debates in the US. Rather than relying on legislatures to make overly emotional decisions on what gun parts should be legal or banned, just make everyone that wants to own a gun carry liability insurance just as they would with a car or when renting an apartment. I can see a lot of positive aspects to such a scheme.


Responsible gun owners will pay a low insurance rate, while people who are careless or stupid get their rates jacked up
When accidents happen, destroyed property and injured people are swiftly compensated
More people will attend gun safety and education classes to get discounted insurance rates
Legislators can waste time on something else

zraver
27 Oct 14,, 22:50
I've actually wondered if liability insurance could be the solution to the endless gun regulation debates in the US. Rather than relying on legislatures to make overly emotional decisions on what gun parts should be legal or banned, just make everyone that wants to own a gun carry liability insurance just as they would with a car or when renting an apartment. I can see a lot of positive aspects to such a scheme.


Responsible gun owners will pay a low insurance rate, while people who are careless or stupid get their rates jacked up
When accidents happen, destroyed property and injured people are swiftly compensated
More people will attend gun safety and education classes to get discounted insurance rates
Legislators can waste time on something else


I can't really see a practical down side to it, though requiring insurance to exercise a right is problematic. A more workable solution would be to require liability insurance when issuing a concealed carry license. Either a specific carry license gun liability insurance or as part of existing personal/home owners/rental policies.

SteveDaPirate
27 Oct 14,, 23:11
I can't really see a practical down side to it, though requiring insurance to exercise a right is problematic. A more workable solution would be to require liability insurance when issuing a concealed carry license. Either a specific carry license gun liability insurance or as part of existing personal/home owners/rental policies.

I'm not against requiring concealed carry license holders to show proof of insurance, but I actually think they are among the groups of gun owners who are least likely to need it. If someone has their CCL at least I know that they care enough to get some education and demonstrate basic firearm proficiency.

I think you are probably correct that requiring insurance to exercise a right guaranteed by the constitution would be problematic. It is a bit unfortunate since liability insurance is a useful mechanism for sensibly regulating the use of other potentially destructive tools.

I know some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are only allowed when you meet certain conditions. Freedom of assembly, for example, is often constrained by time, place, and manner. I don't know enough about constitutional law to know if something like that would provide enough of a precedent to establish proof of insurance as a prerequisite to gun ownership.

Monash
28 Oct 14,, 10:26
Z a couple of things, firstly hundreds of different professions from fire fighters to military personnel to air traffic controllers are employed by the 'government'. If your primary beef is that suing a cop means the taxpayer pays then every public servant is in the same boat! Every single one of them from the President on down through Senators/Congressmen/women to a lowly county records clerk, not just Police - so they would all have to take out personal liability insurance.

Secondly government agencies generally don't take out personal liability insurance and for a good reason. Its much cheaper for government agencies to cover their employees directly than it is to make their employees take out a policy. Theoretically they could go down that path but the result would simply be higher PS wages because the employee would have to be compensated for the addition cost via a wage increase - just like the costs of insurance are factored into the fees charged buy other professions and industries, which means higher taxes. Also no private citizen or company could hope to get cheaper coverage than State or Federal authorities and working out what level of cover was required by each government employee in the country would be a nightmare.

I suppose if you really wanted to you could make a special case for Police but they will demand and get pay increases to cover the cost, otherwise they would simply refuse to attend 'dangerous' call outs like domestics and just stick to 'safe' work like writing up speeding tickets, try getting a surgeon to perform a high risk operation without personal liability insurance cover and see how far you get. Technically you could circumvent the whole problem I suppose by just 'privatizing' at least local P.D.s but that would mean putting contracts out to competitive tender and whoever wins is going to factor the cost of commercial indemnity insurance into their quote anyway so you are back to square one.

As for bad cops they should be weeded out and fired but from what I can see you guys have way to many LEAs over there so its far to easy for poorly trained/dishonest or incompetent cops to hide or move agencies.

Finally there are still way more common/dangerous things to worry about over there than being shot by a cop. The only intelligent way in life to deal with risk is to identify the most likely and serious threats to yourself and your loved ones first and then do what you can to minimize them, starting and the top of the list and working down. So you could for example start with health issues and do things like exercise & diet will reduce the risk of heart attack. Personally, given the size of the US population and assuming you are an average, law abiding citizen then I'd probably be inclined to start worrying about being shot by a cop about the same time I start preparing for rogue badger attacks! i.e it wouldn't be high on my list of worries. However if I was to go into the meth business then I would suggest that my chances of being shot (by someone) would definitely be going up - and hence it would be higher on my threat radar.

As for any normal person, worrying about ultra low risks like 'death by cop' is simply a recipe for a strait jacket or an early grave due too stress, or both.

Cheers

zraver
28 Oct 14,, 14:21
Monash, you hit on the core of the problem- we have too many cops, too many laws and they are too militarized.

Monash
28 Oct 14,, 15:59
Which brings us back to societies perception of risk vs the reality. You may be right and the US may be over-policed, that's a topic that requires detailed analysis. However what is certain is that there is way to much political and media capital to be gained in the West (not just the US) from 'talking up' crime as a threat.

People are being bombarded with messages suggesting that crime of all types is out of control when in fact the opposite is true. It gets votes and sells media space sure, but it is not true. Across the entire developed world crime statistics reveal a broad trend towards steadily declining rates of crime and this trend is reflected across a broad range of crime types, not just one or two specific crimes. There are a range of reasons for this including social and economic factors, technology and yes -better/smarter policing but the trend is clearly evident. This generation is 'safer' than their grandparents were and their children and grandchildren will be safer still.

You may or may not have to many Police in the U.S., to many laws and to much emphasis on 'militarized policing' but that comes down to cultural and political issues which I think reinforce each other. For some reason it appears that the richer, healthier and safer people become the more insecure they seem to feel - obviously there are some very basic physiological and/or cultural issues at play. In the West at least people alive today are healthier, wealthier, better educated and more 'protected' from a diverse range of threats than any other generation in history. Yet they don't seem to feel happier or more secure as a result. Hence the contradiction between perception and reality.

Monash
28 Oct 14,, 16:15
Well, we know what Ozzies are afraid of....


38358


I wonder if he'll return to try to rob the place again - boom, boom! :biggrin:

SteveDaPirate
28 Oct 14,, 16:30
they are too militarized.

Are you referring to police equipment or policies?

I have no qualms about the police having access to gear that is a step above what a well funded gang can buy, or for that matter what I can buy at the nearest sporting goods store.

Most of my issues with the police are rooted in what I consider to be stupid policies. Things like excessive use of "no-knock" raids for low level drug offenses is getting police and innocent people killed. Particularly when they raid the wrong house. I also take issue with the "gotcha" mentality that is such a part of traffic enforcement, I think visibility and deterrence is a much better policy that doesn't undermine the public trust.

Luckily these kinds of policy issues can be debated and changed, I don't condemn the police themselves for following the policies of their departments. I realize that some dirtbags manage to get on the police force just as they turn up in any organization, but I don't know if more are drawn to being cops or they are just in a position to be more of a jerk than usual.

Officer of Engineers
28 Oct 14,, 20:03
I wonder if he'll return to try to rob the place again - boom, boom! :biggrin:Boooooooooo!!!!!!!

Monash
29 Oct 14,, 00:42
Boooooooooo!!!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

As for your question Z it could be a combination of both factors but the issue will no doubt vary in extent from force to force depending on policy decisions made by those in charge.

Speaking from personal experience I can say that commissioners and their senior subordinates are incredibly focused on the media image of their respective forces, often to the point where 'image' is allowed to override operational practicalities. If X is going to look good on TV then do X even if doing Y would actually be better for operational reasons. Dressing uniformed Police up in lots of high tech paramilitary gear usually makes for a good photo opportunity, which makes the force look good on TV, which makes the senior officers look good to their political masters - so don the gear we do, even if the particular operation in question could have been conducted with far less 'dongles'.

Its not just Policing of course where 'image over substance' is the catch cry. This practice infests all areas of government and large sectors of private industry as well. It's the age we live in and it's only going to get worse. :frown:

Samuels creek
29 Oct 14,, 00:56
Isn't the biggest killer in America prescription drugs? If not it would come close. How many suicides and murders related to misuse of prescription drugs by medics?

Bigfella
29 Oct 14,, 10:27
It isn't just the wildlife that is dangerous here AR. Even our bent sticks can kill. :biggrin:

....but seriously, have you ever seen a proper boomerang used for hunting? Mum has a genuine one at home. Several feet long, made of hardwood, sharpened & hardened. Surprisingly heavy. One decent blow could split your skull open or kill you. Besides, we don't have guns here, so our crims have to use something. ;)


Well, we know what Ozzies are afraid of....


38358

Squirrel
29 Oct 14,, 22:17
Isn't the biggest killer in America prescription drugs? If not it would come close. How many suicides and murders related to misuse of prescription drugs by medics?

"Research that, and get back to us."

omon
29 Oct 14,, 22:51
I can't really see a practical down side to it, though requiring insurance to exercise a right is problematic. A more workable solution would be to require liability insurance when issuing a concealed carry license. Either a specific carry license gun liability insurance or as part of existing personal/home owners/rental policies.

i do not see how it will do anything about those that carry guns illegaly, which are the probelm. it is not ccw holders that are the problem. why make life more complicated and expencive for all of them??

not to mention insurances are very relactant to cover intentional actions, be it auto policy or home\renter ins. have seen ins refuse to pay for damages\injury to dui victims

bfng3569
30 Oct 14,, 20:30
I've actually wondered if liability insurance could be the solution to the endless gun regulation debates in the US. Rather than relying on legislatures to make overly emotional decisions on what gun parts should be legal or banned, just make everyone that wants to own a gun carry liability insurance just as they would with a car or when renting an apartment. I can see a lot of positive aspects to such a scheme.


Responsible gun owners will pay a low insurance rate, while people who are careless or stupid get their rates jacked up
When accidents happen, destroyed property and injured people are swiftly compensated
More people will attend gun safety and education classes to get discounted insurance rates
Legislators can waste time on something else


liability insurance.... for gun ownership....

all I can think of is my last rental....... 'Sir, do you want the insurance'.....'you mean, the in cause I total it by 'accident' insurance, I'm covered?'

Double Edge
30 Oct 14,, 22:17
Monash, you hit on the core of the problem- we have too many cops, too many laws and they are too militarized.
Where i'm from its the lack of enough cops that is the problem. The reason is they are a cost centre and do not generate revenue. These are the reasons given when we ask for more cops.

How do you find the resources to employ so many ? high taxes.


Cops might be good where you are, you risk your life trusting them here. Every day its a new outrage- shooting a dog that had to be coaxed over to the cop, hacking womens phones to steal their private pics, no knock raid murders, rape....
i would like to pretend these things you mention do not happen. Otherwise it would get me in trouble if ever i had to deal with cops.

A lack of trust in the police is dangerous. It means better relations are in dire need.

what you said i hear many times here too false encounters is famous. who can say whether true or not.

SteveDaPirate
30 Oct 14,, 23:22
How do you find the resources to employ so many ? high taxes.

A lack of trust in the police is dangerous. It means better relations are in dire need.

The way the police in most US cities work is that the fines associated with traffic and other minor violations go into the city coffers. As a result the police bring in funds that help offset the department's cost to the city. It sounds like an elegant solution but there are some negative aspects to it.

Police department are often under political pressure to increase the revenue they bring in and the police themselves end up being given "quotas" of tickets to hand out every month. This is quite often against department policy, but it is a political reality.

As a result, the public often views the police as being out to get them rather than being there to protect them. Most people's personal experience with the police revolves around traffic violations rather than serious crime. That says good things about the rate of serious crime, but the resulting lack of public trust is concerning.

Double Edge
31 Oct 14,, 13:11
The way the police in most US cities work is that the fines associated with traffic and other minor violations go into the city coffers. As a result the police bring in funds that help offset the department's cost to the city. It sounds like an elegant solution but there are some negative aspects to it.
Ah, your fines are much higher than mine. If fines were increased they would be an outcry, the public would say they are unfair and being fleeced.


Police department are often under political pressure to increase the revenue they bring in and the police themselves end up being given "quotas" of tickets to hand out every month. This is quite often against department policy, but it is a political reality.

As a result, the public often views the police as being out to get them rather than being there to protect them. Most people's personal experience with the police revolves around traffic violations rather than serious crime. That says good things about the rate of serious crime, but the resulting lack of public trust is concerning.
ok, so now i understand why Z says too many cops.

too little cops or too many cops we can't seem to find the right figure some how :)