Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Quibbling over the time frame rather than addressing the content of my post is an odd choice considering the choice of time frame was yours, not mine. For the record, I've never played Call of Duty, but I do know dozens of cops, active and retired, personally; as irrelevant as that is to either of our arguments.

My point is that the known presence of a legal gun is at least as safe as not knowing whether a gun or other weapon is present. A knife or blunt instrument can kill or critically injure within 2 seconds. Even the vehicle itself can be used as a weapon.

Saying the police should be more cautious when there is an acknowledged legal weapon present is equivalent to saying the police should be less cautious when no such weapon is claimed, even though a gun could still be present. That's obviously false even without bringing out any data.

My guess is that if you did bring out some data, you'd find that the presence of an acknowledged legal weapon is correlated with far fewer attempted murders of police than even the average stop, but certainly than stops in which there are illegal weapons.

Can you even provide a single incident where a legal holder of firearms told police during a traffic stop about his weapon and then attempted to shoot at the police?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: