Yes, I think that's fair. Not just legally speaking, but socially -- the police feel they have to assume anybody they interact with might be armed, and therefore that they need a preemptive armed response, just because of the prevalent gun ownership and gun culture.
> is it fair to say things are this way due to no gun control?
I don't think so. Maryland isn't the most restrictive state when it comes to firearm policy[1], but it's a long distance from "no gun control." I'm also not certain that the chance of armed encounters is terribly high in Bethesda, though I'm uncertain if those crime statistics are recorded or what terms I should use to search for them. To give a comparison, the homicide rate per capita (which I suspect would correlate to some extent with police interaction with armed individuals) in Montgomery County (where Bethesda is) was 1.4/100,000 in 2016 [2]. For Australia at large, the rate is 1.0/100,000 [3], so pretty comparable. These police officers don't seem to operate in an area that is notably more dangerous/violent than Australia.
I do, however, think the issue is cultural. Many police officers in the US seem to perceive that they are in danger 24/7, and this effects how they interact with people on a daily basis. There is a preference for an overwhelming show of force even when it's absolutely uncalled for. This probably contributes to a feedback loop that causes the general population and the police to trust each other less and be more confrontational. And I don't seem to be alone in identifying this as a problem; if you search for problems with police culture in the US, you will find a large body of criticism for the default behavior of police officers.
Yes, I think you're right that the police attitude (and the way that makes the public respond) is a big part of the problem.
This discussion always makes me think of Robert Peel's principles of "policing by consent", amazingly forward-looking given that they were drawn up in the early 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
The UK doesn't follow these principles perfectly (for example, there are still tensions between the police and racial minorities) but they're mostly in the right ballpark. It seems from news reports that most US police forces don't even try -- the police see themselves more as being in conflict with the community.
What you describe as no gun control, which I assume is the 2nd Amendment and in many states is far, far away from no gun control, is specifically set up to allow citizens to defend themselves from the exact type of organized gang the police have set up. The citizens need guns to protect themselves from the police first and foremost. If Americans didn't have guns, we'd be in a police state much worse than anyone can imagine and the police and government would kill and hurt way more people than they currently do. We would not be in a state similar to many European democracies that have strict gun control but in a state of constant persecution. So yes, if you want to put it that way, things are the way they are because of loose gun control laws. But the way things are is a billion times better than what it would be if we were subjected to the tyranny of police and government without the deterrent of guns. In other words, we only exist as a pseudo free society because of guns and removing them will remove any semblance of freedom there is left. Either that or we go for full on gun control where police and law enforcement organizations in general don't carry guns either, but I simply don't see that as a realistic solution given police and government attitudes and inclination to serve themselves at the expense of the people.
"Forget your years of combat experience, shoot first ask questions later, that's our policy."
U.S. Police have more of a free hand to shoot civilians than U.S. Military have to shoot people in war. The U.S. is not a Mad Max war zone... although that's the narrative police seem to want to cultivate because it makes it easier to justify their aggressive tactics and the civilian body count.
Police entering someone’s home are going to have to be prepared even if there was a very low chance of encountering someone with a gun. If you’re going into a house and you don’t know where someone is, pretty much any kind of lethal weapon is going to be a serious risk. If they weren’t risking being shot, they’d be risking being stabbed.
Except that in UK if someone calls the police to go and check on someone, they won't even have a gun on them. They will knock, enter and leave, without having a gun drawn or even on their person. They will have a baton or a taser, but not a gun. The only situation when a gun would be released for use is if the caller identified the situation as dangerous. But a "wellness" check on someone? Absolutely not.
This is a good point. I think it’s difficult to argue that gun control doesn’t save lives in these situations or even overall. But then your options for armed resistance against the state are quite limited, which is the entire purpose of the second amendment anyways. It literally has nothing to do with hunting or sport.
>But then your options for armed resistance against the state are quite limited, which is the entire purpose of the second amendment anyways.
That oft-cited point becomes less valid when one considers that armed revolutions can occur and have occurred without an explicit right of gun ownership having being granted by the state beforehand.
I think your options for armed resistance against the state are going to be quite limited by the fact that they have cruise missiles and you have a 9mm.
Every comment seems to miss what seems obvious to me.
Since the chance of armed encounters is high the Police have to respond this way to every scenario or risk getting shot.