Annotated Bibliography

Goldhill, Olivia. How Do Police Handle Violence in Countries Where Officers Don't Carry

Guns?Quartz, Quartz, 9 July 2016, qz.com/727941/how-do-police-handle-violence-in

-countries-where-officers-dont-carry-guns/. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

This is a news article published by Quarts exploring how other nations police forces and

laws affect guns. Police dont need guns to be effective. Police brutality is becoming a

normality and is horrific. Black man being shot could be called the modern-day

lynching. In six months, approximately 570 have been killed by US police. It doesnt

have to be that way - police officers dont have to shoot to kill several countries police do

not even have to carry a gun. Countries - Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Britain, and

Ireland police do not carry firearms. In Iceland, it is legal for citizens to carry guns - only

about 30% of people actually do. In 1886 New Zealand police were disarmed their

principle is constables are placed in authority to protect, not to oppress, the public.

Citizens in the other countries dont have access to guns generally. Police are not taken

by surprise by a firearm. Officers are trained how to handle firearms. Armed officers can

be called to respond to a situation where a person is armed. Key differences between US

and elsewhere is training. Us train for an average of 19 weeks Norway have three years

training. In 19 weeks of training time is spent on essential things like defending yourself

and keeping yourself safe. Three years means you also learn to protect others, how to

avoid situations from arising. This leads itself to a whole different outlook and culture in

enforcement of the laws. Other countries train to do de-escalate hostile situations + to

use minimal violence. In Finland, you must obtain permission from superior officer

before shooting. In Spain, a warning shot is fired. In the US only shoot to kill, or deadly

force is used. US law gives a fairly wide scope for police violence and can shoot if there

is reasonable perception of a grave, imminent threat officers can determine what is

reasonable European Convention of Human Rights policies can only shoot when it is

absolutely necessary. Working in countries where citizens do not have access to guns

give police officers a much better work environment. Iceland where citizens do have

guns has one of the lowest global crime rates in the world. Most of their crimes do not

involve firearms. Being a police officer comes with great risks but better training can

reduce this risk.

The author of this article is Olivia Goldhill. This article was published on July ninth of

2016. The publisher of the article is Quartz and there is no known edition or revision

information provided. The title of the article is How do Police Handle Violence in

Countries Where Officers Dont Carry Guns?. This article is intended for those who are

interested in less violence by police and less gun violence. This is also written to provide

more education about handling situations to keep them less violent. This article talks a

lot about not shooting to kill. The article provides some insight to training of police

officers and the differences between how the US does their training compared to how

other countries.

This is helpful to see how other countries handle officers with no guns. How other

countries have less violence and how they spend more time training their officers. This

showed the differences in country policies as in the US has shoot to kill and other

countries are restricted to shoot only when absolutely necessary. This may be less useful
 for paper due to dealing more with policies then actual gun laws. It was interesting to see

about other countries and how they handled guns and their police force.

Lotts, John R. Effects of Gun Control. Effects of Gun Control, University of Chicago Law

School, www.largo.org/Lott.html. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

This is an article written by a professor based on guns and how they are used. More guns

equal less violent crime. The democratic party solution and violent crime is clear - more

regulation of guns. Crucial questions underlying all gun-control laws include what is

their net effect, are more lives lost or saved, do they deter crime or encourage it. Shall-

issue laws - type of gun control law on concealed weapons - gives people right to carry

concealed handgun if they have no criminal record / history of mental illness. These laws

have reduced crime. Criminals respond rationally to deterrence threats. There are some

benefits of concealed handguns. People can use them for self-defense. Weapons that are

concealed keep criminals uncertain whether a potential victim can defend himself. It

makes attacking everyone less attractive. Confronting an armed person is much lower.

Some criminals avoid violent crimes byt do not always give up their criminal life

altogether. Violent crime rates may fall however larceny, auto thefts may rise, much

better to live with them than the violent crimes. Support for strict gun control laws has

been strongest in big cities and where crime rates are highest - the right to carry laws

have produced largest drops in violent crimes. Women are helped more by concealed

handguns because victims are usually weaker than the criminal who attacks. Women
with a concealed handgun makes a big difference in her ability to defend herself. Genes

are a great equality between the weak and the vicious. It is rare that owners of concealed

handguns use them to commit violent crimes or in minor disputes such as traffic

accidents. Accidental deaths are fewer than 200 per a year in the United States.

Preventing, law - abiding citizens from carrying handguns does not end violence, but

merely makes people more vulnerable to attack. The opportunity to reduce the murder

rate by simply relaying a regulation ought to be difficult to ignore.

Professor John R Lotts from the university of Chicago Law School is the author of this

writing. This was published by the professor. The title of this article is More Guns

Equal Less Crime. The exact time of publication is unknown. The intended audience is

more than likely Democrats since it is from the Democratic party. Their solution is not

objective because they feel the solution to violent crime is more regulation of guns

compared to a good compromise between the two sides of the argument. The article

states example of gun regulations and types of gun control as well as discussing the

regulations placed on concealed carry of a firearm. The article discusses shall issue laws

which were new and not discussed in other articles. This article also discussed in more

detail about concealed handguns. This was well written and easier to understand.

This article talks about regulation which is a part of my paper. However, this is a point of

view from one special interest group. The opinions may be biased.