Poll: Arming the UK Police

[MGlBlaze]

I dont know If this has already been said but in the UK when using Lethal firearms the law states that ANY shot fired by a Police officer at a target HAS to be a Killing shot.

Also do you think the government doesnt discuss this with their officers, I've been a Special Constable (part-time bobby) for almost two years now, Every time this comes up the Police themselves turn it down, as Im sure others have said It just means that the scum on the streets are just going to arm themselves more.

Also a Weapon Is very intimidating to the public which causes them to dislike/fear/hate us which encourages crime and prevents us from doing our jobs, I have a good rep in my town becuase I help people and thats what policing should be about.

By the Way the majority of the Armed officers in the home office police forces today are armed with MP9's, G36's and glocks ^.^

HAS to be a killing shot? Please cite the law in question for me, as I doubt that this is the case. I agree with the rest of your thoughts.

Anyway, fewer guns = fewer deaths. If people have guns, people are going to die. I'm curious as to why no tazer showed up for the situation in the video, but it isn't a reason why police need guns as standard issue.

"Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy"

Also, there is no such thing as a gunshot wound that isn't potentially lethal. It doesn't matter where you're hit; if you're shot and you don't get medical attention, you will almost certainly die. It's just a case of 'how long'.

I agree that the fact that the UK police usually don't carry firearms does have it's benefits; such as the fact that no-one died here. I'd say that's a fairly positive outcome. A taser would have been pretty helpful, though...

 

[Burs]

HAS to be a killing shot? Please cite the law in question for me, as I doubt that this is the case. I agree with the rest of your thoughts.

quote]

Sorry I was wrong, but Armed Officers do have a Shoot to kill policy, as EU law states that firearms should only be used to remove the threat to life, Senior officers concluded as a Wounded man can still fire a gun/ detonate a bomb/ stab someone the only way to completely remove the threat is to eliminate the threat.

 

[mightybozz]

Well as many people have said, we simply don't have guns here. Which means gun crime is incredibly rare. Police shootings are also rare, and (usually) properly investigated like any other potential offence.

When it comes to beating the shit out of people in protests and dragging them out of wheelchairs, we're not so good...

 

[EvilPicnic]

Variant to topic, but this answers a question I've been meaning to ask on a Torchwood forum. In one episode of Torchwood (season one), the character of PC (Police Constable) Gwen Cooper is taken into an indoor firing range by Jack, shown a selection of handguns (some of which appear to be police issue) and told that she'd "need to learn to use them."

That was confusing, because I figured that she should know already, being a police officer. Turns out she doesn't because UK police aren't armed - makes sense for the show, but really fucking terrifies me as a person. Guns are what makes armed forced something to be respected and feared. Sure, the legal right to arrest and fine might be enough for some people, and nightsticks/batons and spray might for others, but what about those that aren't fearful of those things?

There are nearly 7000 authorised firearms officers in the UK, and we are a small island. All major airports and political buildings have armed officers present, as well as armed response teams being on call. So it's not true that there are no armed officers. But mostly they're not needed.

And that whole arming yourself out of fear thing works the other way too; criminals know they won't get shot out of hand and so don't feel the need to arm themselves with firearms to protect themselves. It's like the reduction of nuclear weapons, it leads to a general de-escalation of violence and tension across the board.

Saying you'd be terrified is quite interesting: here in the UK we don't live in fear at all, and there are no suggestions at all to arm the police. Notice that nearly all the 'OMG how awful' posts are from users outside the UK and most of the 'errr...why would we need to?' posts are from UK users. The grass really is greener.

In fact, if police got given lethal weapons as standard, I think most people would be pretty pissed off...

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

I get the distinct feeling this thread has been massively affected by the numbers of Americans posting here so I will just say this and hope someone reads it.

We are and will remain a country with a massively different culture from you, firearms have not and hopefully never will be commonplace here arming rank and file police officers is simply an insane idea. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination I realise that sometimes they are a necessary tool.

It does strike me though that any society that feels a need for everyone to be armed in order to feel safe is more than a little insecure. But like I said, different cultures, different ways of doing things.

I leave you with this quote from a friend of my family who served in an inner city police force for several years and was involved in a fair amount of violence in his time.

One time I was asked if I would like to undertake firearms training and join the better paid response squad, I looked the man asking me right in the eye and said. "No thank you sir, if people are shooting I would rather stand at the back."

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, the gun does make it a whole lot easier though.

 

[Shydrow]

I can't read 7 pages of most my fellow Americans saying "let their be guns" regardless of if i share the notion to arm the police with them we have guns built into are society.

The issue isn't should they have guns it is do they have the need for them and so far all i see them needing is non-lethal projectiles like a shotgun that shoots only beanbags and the like.

I say Option 3 for the most part if guns are needed.

Also for the record i find the use of a video when you already have some solid facts to be more harmful than helpful cause it made me only think you are trying to get people to agree with you and don't have the facts to back up your position.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

I think they should be armed with tazers and yell "Pika. Pika. PIKACHUUU!!" when tazing.

OT: I think option is the best, but they should only be allowed to use it in situations where it's absolutely neccessary to protect or save someone.

 

[Mcupobob]

Since 1960, there have been 200,000 cold cases and each year 6,000 other cases go cold in the US alone.

Reports also say theres a drug bust in the U.S about every 18 seconds.

Just want to throw that out there. The only reason police need a gun is take down a maniac wielding one, or to arrest street gangs. But hell if you think you'll feel safer knowing the those thugs on government pay rolls are packing heat then whatever. Though I don't know how good the police are in the U.K over here though cops are more interested in busting those damn teens with pot than solving murders or robberies.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I get the distinct feeling this thread has been massively affected by the numbers of Americans posting here so I will just say this and hope someone reads it.

We are and will remain a country with a massively different culture from you, firearms have not and hopefully never will be commonplace here arming rank and file police officers is simply an insane idea. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination I realise that sometimes they are a necessary tool.

It does strike me though that any society that feels a need for everyone to be armed in order to feel safe is more than a little insecure. But like I said, different cultures, different ways of doing things.

I leave you with this quote from a friend of my family who served in an inner city police force for several years and was involved in a fair amount of violence in his time.

One time I was asked if I would like to undertake firearms training and join the better paid response squad, I looked the man asking me right in the eye and said. "No thank you sir, if people are shooting I would rather stand at the back."

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, the gun does make it a whole lot easier though.

Quoted for truth.

American posters, refer to the recent Extra Credits video on the 'Myth of the Gun' in US culture.

This fetishism of guns is something we simply don't have in the UK, (at least, not to the same extent).

It's a truly different environment; your everyday Bobby on the beat does not need to be packing heat.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

"When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults."

That's why.

Writing something in Latin doesn't make it any more correct.

 

[Kadoodle]

If the police have guns, so too should the citizens, to protect themselves from the police.

Yeah, because the police are power hungry maniacs that hate you and are out to get you. That makes a ton of sense.

 

[erztez]

Also, come to think of it, to paraphrase John Oliver:

"The last time we had guns we conquered most of the planet"

Yeah...let's keep the guns away from the brits, m'kay?

 

[erztez]

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

"When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults."

That's why.

Writing something in Latin doesn't make it any more correct.

Ehm...no, it doesn't. The fact that it's TRUE is what makes it correct.

 

[Jedoro]

Cops without guns? In order to protect people, you have to be better armed than the majority of those who are a threat. One, it's easier to have courage from a distance and two, people have a tendency to back down when faced with superior firepower. That's why I love how cops around here not only have a pistol on their belt/thigh, but a shotgun in their patrol car. Mr. Machete there wouldn't be a problem for Tennessee police officers.

 

[Kadoodle]

If the police have guns, so too should the citizens, to protect themselves from the police.

Yeah, because the police are power hungry maniacs that hate you and are out to get you. That makes a ton of sense.

Remember those guys that wrote the constitution of the United States of America? Those guys a lot smarter than anyone in this forum, including you and I? Yeah, see, they just got done fighting against, among other things, the police and saw fit to include the right to bear arms into the founding rights of their country.

P.S: go tell those people being beaten by police in the gutter that they have nothing to fear. I mean, they obviously don't need to protect themselves from that. And those guys in Libya? Fighting for their democratic rights against a military that wants them dead? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they need to protect themselves too.

Ok. I see what you're getting at. I misjudged your original wording; it came across to me that you were under the impression that the police would immediately begin abuse their firearms.

 

[AngloDoom]

I'm more for the idea of police being given non-lethal weapons. A tazer, a stun-gun, anything of a similar disposition - non-lethal, stuns, and hits from a distance.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I see the American standard of gunning down anyone looking at you funny is really nicely excepted.

Anyway police officers in my country are all trained and armed, but for them only to unholster a weapon can be a career ending decision unless they have several colleges confirming the necessity, and anyone pulling an american style gun-down will land in jail before the body get's cold.
So they aren't just armed and let loose like the wild west nutters, they are armed for necessity only and very closely monitored not to step out of line.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I don't think that the police should always be armed but I do think that the police should have the option.

The main problem with arming the police is that the British public have time and again proved themselves incapable of debating police action in a mature manner. The British public seem to have this quaint view that no one should ever get hurt in any circumstance, our police get enough crap for riot actions like cuffing that cripple (which, it turned out, wasn't all that crippled but that never really got reported) and the public just can't see the reason for the police to have guns.

By 'cuffing that cripple' are you referring to Ian Tomlinson, who was struck and thrown to the ground by an officer and died from internal bleeding? Which an inquest has recently judged to be an unlawful killing? For shame.

 

[mightybozz]

Reading this thread, I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of UK officers who say that they don't want firearms. It makes me really proud of our police. And normally I'm very, very cynical about the whole thing

 

[HellenicWarrior]

A firearm is a necessary tool in stopping a violent offender. It's the only weapon gauranteed to stop someone when used properly.