> but for the thousands of these interactions that occur every day, it is more likely the officer will die, than you [1].

>> In the last 10 years, on average, an officer per week has been killed on our nation’s roads (2010-2019 = 53 deaths per year).1

The claim you made isn't directly supported by the citation. The cited article includes all police deaths on the road, not just ones arising from traffic stops.

I would expect the risk to the officer of getting hit by a passing car to be much greater than the risk of being attacked by a pulled-over driver.

Do I not have a constitutional right to carry a firearm? Does the existence of a firearm justify summary execution as a penalty for a traffic violation?

Edit: and more to the point... wouldn't reducing the frequency of these interactions also improve the safety and wellbeing of police officers?

You have to accept that carrying a deadly weapon increases the risk though. If you get angry in the situation , you are more likely to get shot if you pull out a gun than if you raise your fists.

GP only said "carry a gun on your person" not "pull out a gun". The former is constitutionally protected, the latter can be a crime - there's a big difference.

If you have a gun then you will more likely be pull on out then if you don’t. A cop has to be more careful when operating around someone that can kill them in 2 seconds.

Anyone can kill them in two seconds. A cop that thinks otherwise is the one who is most likely to be killed in those two seconds.

I’d really like to see any story about a cop killed by someone legally carrying a weapon after they’ve announced they have such a weapon.

2 seconds... yeah, I think you’ve been relying too much on call of duty

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?

Yes you have the right (IMO).

I only mentioned it as a factor which presumably increases the risk of death, since there are notable cases of CCW holders being shot during traffic stops.

The post you're replying to is from the standpoint that the driver may have a warrant that they don't know about. Which I'm still sure ends up being handled peacefully most of the time, but its not going to be a fun night.

What is this victim-blaming?

Yeah, this stance is insane. You literally have a constitutional right to carry a gun. If that's grounds for lethal force at a traffic stop then I don't think we really have that right. And obey police officers absolutely or die is the stupidest possible escalation. If you don't listen to an officer the result should be a citation or an arrest.

You actually do not have a right to carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle, here in CA.

People are also missing the point: cops are not well trained, they panic just like everyone does. Hence my position it’s best to avoid interactions with them which involve firearms, legal or otherwise.

Being murdered by a police officer is improbable - it's not something that happens at most traffic stops. This is essentially tautological, otherwise things would change overnight.

But that doesn't justify excusing the instances when it does happen. The entire point of having a justice system is to discourage criminal behavior, and provide a sense of fairness so that feuds do not escalate. When we see a violent criminal murder someone on camera but then not even get charged because they happen to be wearing a uniform, it's clear that system is in need of fixing. If you truly support law and order, then making sure that law is applied evenly should be your priority.

Cops are in less danger than sanitation workers. Get this state-violence apologia out of here.

Most of cops deaths are from traffic accidents. They are on roads a lot, so they get into accidents quite regularly.