Hacker News Reader

Comment by Munksgaard | Hacker News Reader

I don't know of any developed country where the police can reasonably expect to face better equipped adversaries than they can in the US. This is interesting for two reasons: You may have a point that it is necessary in the US for the police to have automatic weapons, but the US is also the only western country that has put itself in such a situation. Take from that what you will...

View on HN

"automatic weapons" is sort of a red herring. even in the military (US military at least), rifles are usually used in semi-auto mode. AFAIK, the main exception would be suppressive fire on a position, which is probably not an appropriate tactic for police in a residential area.

even in the US, you are much more likely to encounter criminals armed with pistols than rifles. it's a much more appropriate platform for the use case.

That’s because with a m4, your job isn’t to push random rounds down range. Your job is to actually hit what you’re aiming at. Even with covering or suppressive fire, you’re not randomly shooting down range and your shots are calculated to keep whomever your shooting at either dead or where they are so they can be flanked. You might have some full automatic weapons in your team, but they can’t hit anything so they just lay down suppressive fire. Point is, you can’t hit what you’re aiming at in full auto.

Source: ex-military

There are plenty of places. Mexico for example where the narcos have capabilities similar to the mexican military and In brazil we have little kids with automatic rifles roaming the favelas.

You missed the "developed countries" dogwhistle, which usually means rich and white nations.

is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?

>is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?

The dogwhistle has now turned into a full on bullhorn.

"first and second world" does a pretty good job covering it since there's plenty of nations that are formerly in the USSR's sphere of influence that aren't exactly rich but don't have to worry about cartel type violence.

Pretty much nobody likes to think that way though because the majority of the time "developed nations" are brought up it's in the context of how the US should be more like western Europe and it's usually ideologically convenient to leave Eastern Europe out of those kinds of comparisons.

"first and second world" describes more or less the same set of countries (perhaps modulo some eastern european countries like you said), but doesn't it have most of the same baggage as "developed nations"? as I understand it, the problem with "developed nations" is that it raises the question "developed compared to what?". in other words, it implicitly sets the west as the standard against which "developed" is measured. doesn't first/second/third world center the western perspective in pretty much the same way?

"Europe, but only the parts I like"

It specifically does mean rich, but includes China and Japan and South Korea, which are not white. The description of economic development was specifically to exclude race and political affiliation from the equation while still capturing the relevant metrics -- poverty causes violent crime.

Denmark and Sweden have increasing problems with drugs gangs using hand grenades, and they've had a lot of experience with the motorbike club gangs in the eighties and nineties, who raided army barracks for military weapons and waged war.

Should they use the military to patrol the streets?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com