It comes down to more than just highly trained police officers.
A level of trust between the police and the public as well as criminals is needed. The more violent the criminals the more likely the police are to shoot just in case, which makes everything worse by adding to a vicious circle. Here, there is no significant racial minority that gets killed by the police more likely than other groups. If there were, criminals belonging to that group might be more likely to shoot at the police to save their own lives, which would make the police more likely to shoot them, or anyone suspicious enough, in the first place. Occupational safety (*).
Cultural conditioning along the lines of shoot first and ask questions later does not exist. Gun heroes are not lionized. Canadian and American gun cultures differ similarly because the Canadian West was settled in a more centrally controlled manner. Most of the land was owned and controlled by Hudson Bay Company and infrastructure was built first before large scale immigration. In Finland, the north was settled over a much longer period of time and by much fewer people. Initially, Australia was a prison colony at but a managed one and not a free-for-all shooting gallery. :D
*) One thing Quora has taught me is to NEVER under any circumstances get out of the car and approach the squad car when pulled over by American police like is done in certain countries, unless getting perforated by a fast metal projectile is #1 on your wish list.
It comes down to more than just highly trained police officers
Yes, I know. But it is all part of the "training" - not just the education system. The vicious cycle is wound up in systemic processes, including cultural systems, making the breaking very difficult.
And yeah, the American history of violence to "tame and control" it in many ways, is still there today. It is no surprise really, that a country built on incentivized violence, has problems with violent crime.
Initially, Australia was a prison colony at but a managed one and not a free-for-all shooting gallery. :D
Tell that to Ned Kelly! Or the estimated 1.5M natives that were killed to make it all happen, which is still impacting the country today, 200 years later.
It is much like building - if you start with a poor foundation, you end up with a poor house.
Yes, a lot of the natives fell victim to genocide but that's still different from the sort of free-for-all the American west was where settlement preceded law and order.
The rest of the British colonies settled by mostly Europeans: Canada, Australia and New Zealand are still less violent than the USA. The legacy of slavery is the cause of much of the violence in the US.
Now for something a bit controversial: the difference between civilized and uncivilized is maybe not in the amount of killing done but in how organized the killing is. Thoughts?
Well, "sanctioned killing" in my opinion is still murder. Is there really a justifiable reason for a government to kill anyone in or outside of their jurisdiction?
That's another interesting question. I was making a cynical observation, really. What I find is that if rationalizations and justifications were rocket fuel, humanity would've been able to explore half the galaxy already.
It comes down to more than just highly trained police officers.
A level of trust between the police and the public as well as criminals is needed. The more violent the criminals the more likely the police are to shoot just in case, which makes everything worse by adding to a vicious circle. Here, there is no significant racial minority that gets killed by the police more likely than other groups. If there were, criminals belonging to that group might be more likely to shoot at the police to save their own lives, which would make the police more likely to shoot them, or anyone suspicious enough, in the first place. Occupational safety (*).
Cultural conditioning along the lines of shoot first and ask questions later does not exist. Gun heroes are not lionized. Canadian and American gun cultures differ similarly because the Canadian West was settled in a more centrally controlled manner. Most of the land was owned and controlled by Hudson Bay Company and infrastructure was built first before large scale immigration. In Finland, the north was settled over a much longer period of time and by much fewer people. Initially, Australia was a prison colony at but a managed one and not a free-for-all shooting gallery. :D
*) One thing Quora has taught me is to NEVER under any circumstances get out of the car and approach the squad car when pulled over by American police like is done in certain countries, unless getting perforated by a fast metal projectile is #1 on your wish list.
Yes, I know. But it is all part of the "training" - not just the education system. The vicious cycle is wound up in systemic processes, including cultural systems, making the breaking very difficult.
And yeah, the American history of violence to "tame and control" it in many ways, is still there today. It is no surprise really, that a country built on incentivized violence, has problems with violent crime.
Tell that to Ned Kelly! Or the estimated 1.5M natives that were killed to make it all happen, which is still impacting the country today, 200 years later.
It is much like building - if you start with a poor foundation, you end up with a poor house.
Yes, a lot of the natives fell victim to genocide but that's still different from the sort of free-for-all the American west was where settlement preceded law and order.
The rest of the British colonies settled by mostly Europeans: Canada, Australia and New Zealand are still less violent than the USA. The legacy of slavery is the cause of much of the violence in the US.
It isn't just slavery, though that is a big part. I think the general mindset is built on getting to the top by standing on the bodies of others.
Now for something a bit controversial: the difference between civilized and uncivilized is maybe not in the amount of killing done but in how organized the killing is. Thoughts?
Well, "sanctioned killing" in my opinion is still murder. Is there really a justifiable reason for a government to kill anyone in or outside of their jurisdiction?
That's another interesting question. I was making a cynical observation, really. What I find is that if rationalizations and justifications were rocket fuel, humanity would've been able to explore half the galaxy already.