Poll: Arming the UK Police

[shadowform]

I'd be in favour of gun decriminalisation, but I can't see it happening. Why do you feel that the citizens need protection from police officers, if I may ask?

Really awkward question since you're from the UK, but if you want the honest answer there was a really big issue with how the government was running things in this country a few hundred years ago and it's really stuck in the public consciousness.

Really - comparing the gun control situation in the UK and US is a difficult thing because the two have operate on a lot of different social theories and just general environment. There's the general attitude that the populace not only has the right to be armed, but SHOULD be armed to keep the government in check. Aside from this, there's the utility of firearms for hunting (still a very popular pastime - and source of food - where i grew up, for instance), which I think would be much more common here because there's a lot more land that's still more or less wild and undeveloped.

 

[EllEzDee]

Wait, so because the guy in the video has a deadly weapon, he deserves to die?
Imagine in another, far more common situation, where rather than mental illness, the perpetrator's off his face on booze? Does this mean he should die? He's not in control of his actions is he?
If the police had firearms, the man in the video would be dead. At least he still has a chance at life.

Or, you know, they could shoot him in his arm or another nonlethal area. Swinging a machete around and chasing cops is reason enough to shoot.

There's no such place on the human body that's not considered lethal to force a piece of hot metal into. A shot into the arm or leg can easily sever an artery, leading to the person bleeding too quickly for the body to cope with.
It's a Hollywood myth that you can get shot in the arm, or even take one in the gut, and easily live to tell the tale; chances are, you're going to die.

 

[Vykrel]

that video was simply embarrassing, to be honest... they should be carrying guns, i say either option 1 or 2. i chose option 2 because its closer to what people are used to in the UK, but still gives the police a better chance against criminals.

seriously, some criminals will NOT go down from beatings, pepper spray, or tasings. and in many situations, they will have the opportunity to cause someone serious harm or even kill someone in the time it takes to finally bring them down... but if the cops have at least one firearm, that kind of outcome can be avoided rather easily. of course, it would always be a last resort.

a good example in favor of the UK police getting firearms is a situation that happened in my area in like the '90s. a big ass guy did some things that led to the cops being called. if i recall correctly, he was off his rocker from being high on cocaine or something, and the cops beat him, tasered him, and sprayed him with pepper spray, and at some point he managed to put a female officer in a headlock. she couldnt breathe, and would have been unconscious in moments, even dead if he had held her much longer, but one officer was forced to shoot him in the head after the man ignored multiple warnings. if this had happened in the UK, i think its safe to say that the female officer would have been killed.

 

[Randomologist]

I'm going to vote for a fifth option, that guns should be issued in certain areas. Rough areas of big cities or housing estates, those kind of places. Where I live, the only guns are with farmers, unlikely to be trouble, hence armed police not needed. Though we do of course have armed units available.

 

[Burs]

I would be interested to see the results of this poll if you were to remove the opinions of everyone from the US. Gun control FTW! isn't it logical to assume that having fewer guns, we will have fewer shootings as well?

Would be quite interesting to read How many pro-gun posters in this tread are 13 year olds -.-

 

[Daverson]

Option two. Though with some elements from option one. I've noticed a lot of police in the US tend to have shotguns in patrol vehicles. This sort of approach would probably the best, as it'd maintain the atmosphere of "I don't need to worry about you shooting me within the next 5 seconds" you currently have with the police over here, while still giving them a good degree of flexibility when it comes to dealing with situations like the OP gave us.

The majority of British people don't own guns, and don't want to own guns. We've got a good thing going on with police patrols not carrying firearms (just look at the plethora of "Police point gun at old lady" stories in the US news). The majority of those who do legally own firearms are pretty responsible, we're talking more along the lines of, owns a shotgun for hunting, or a .22 for target shooting, rather than, owns twenty AR-15s to stop the government from trying to take away his AR-15s.

Though, we can't expect criminals to just be polite, can we? Someone's already posted the story that came to mind, when armed police found a pretty nasty pile of ordinance under a schoolchild's bed. (Though, I don't think he mentioned it was a schoolchild). Pistols, and other easily concealed firearms are effectively completely illegal in the UK (outside some high ranked public servants, you won't find legally owned pistols, as they fall into section 5, which require special permission from the Home Secretary for private ownership). The shotgun looks like a Remington 1100 (basically a semi-automatic 870), which can technically be owned by anyone legally (if they have an SGC, of course!), but I doubt it was legally obtained (probably stolen from someone).

 

[Burs]

But we dont want them, it cuases more problems then good!

all that is needed Is increased restraint training (Ive learnt more doing the Friday/Saturday night shifts then I did in training) and Increased Physical training (lets get rid of the tubby bobbies)

 

[Bealzibob]

I choose option 5...

Arm them with tazers like any logical person would. It's (mostly) non-lethal and ranged thus solving every problem presented by this situation.

Would shooting him really be the ideal solution to dealing with a clearly mentally unstable person?

 

[Danny Ocean]

lol@all the Americans skewing this vote.

It worked out ok in the end. No-one needed to get shot. What's the problem?

 

[Spygon]

the uk police for are a joke and a number of them act recklessly around the public often causing as much trouble as they start.Arming these guys would end up with a rise in shootings so i will go with number 3.

Only fully trained specialised teams of police should be allowed firearms

 

[erztez]

I would be interested to see the results of this poll if you were to remove the opinions of everyone from the US. Gun control FTW! isn't it logical to assume that having fewer guns, we will have fewer shootings as well?

Would be quite interesting to read How many pro-gun posters in this tread are 13 year olds -.-

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

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

That's why.

 

[thylasos]

The status quo is just fine.

There's outlying cases and occasional tragedy, yes, but increasing the prevalence of firearms will just increase those cases.

We don't have a gun-owning culture, unlike the US, where for all the difference in gun-related deaths, there's a way in which it works. People aren't clamouring for it here, apart from a few people who go to gun clubs who want a more powerful or faster-loading weapon for the range.

 

[Burs]

I would be interested to see the results of this poll if you were to remove the opinions of everyone from the US. Gun control FTW! isn't it logical to assume that having fewer guns, we will have fewer shootings as well?

Would be quite interesting to read How many pro-gun posters in this tread are 13 year olds -.-

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

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

That's why.

Still this is null and void as we have Firearms officers,
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO CARRY

Signed a Hampshire Special Constable

 

[idarkphoenixi]

a gun in that situation would've only resulted in death. if they needed a gun then a tazer would do better.

Gotta agree. In a situation like this, a tazer would have worked just as well, if not better than a firearm.

UK police don't carry guns as standard isuue because generally speaking, guns are not needed. UK crime is fairly small compared to other countries. A tazer should certainly be carried, but only if they recieve proper training on it. I've seen too many law enforcement officials treating tazers like toys, using them on people without a moments hesitation.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

To me, handing out guns to all officers just ups the ante, I don't believe most criminals, even if they had a gun, would shoot a police officer dead to escape arrest, if they could run or hit the guy to get away. If the police were armed, that criminal would know he'd have to shoot the officer dead to escape.

Also, ignoring the media hype, there just aren't masses of guns in every estate in the UK, the reason gun crime gets reported is because it's an event, rather than an everyday occurence.

On top of that, I'm in agreement that there's a minority who like to pile into protests and use their batons to crack a few hippy skulls under the defence of 'quelling troublesome elements'.

I'd rather not arm all of them, knowing that a small minority are a bit too quick to resort to violence, although I'm fully in favour of responsible, trained armed response units for emergencies.

Btw, smart move on the poll, won't stop people going OMG GUNS YES/NO, but it'll slow them down a bit. Tho you are going to get skewed results from people who just really love their favourite number.

 

[YawningAngel]

Given that the last person whose shooting by UK police I can remember by the UK police was an unarmed electrician, I'm going to stick with a firm "fuck no" on this.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I would be interested to see the results of this poll if you were to remove the opinions of everyone from the US. Gun control FTW! isn't it logical to assume that having fewer guns, we will have fewer shootings as well?

Would be quite interesting to read How many pro-gun posters in this tread are 13 year olds -.-

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

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

That's why.

I've never understood why people think that argument is persuasive. It's just a clever pun.

In reality, all guns were legal at some point before they got onto the black market and into criminal hands.

When guns are illegal, or difficult to obtain legally, the black market has no source and criminal access to guns is reduced.

When guns are legal and freely obtainable would-be mass-murderers can buy as many guns as they want at the local supermarket.

 

[BringBackBuck]

I always find gun threads fascinating.

The American obsession with guns is so foreign to my way of thinking. Apparently this stems from the role firearms played how America won it's independence, the escalation of arsenals during the Cold War, enshrined in the second amendment, and reflected in popular culture for years, backed by a highly resourced and politically active firearms industry. As a result the opinions from many Americans are very specific to their own culture and cannot really be applied to the UK (or other countries).

Bearing that in mind it is unfair to simply say "you guys are wrong". This always comes up with the argument about concealed carrying, with gun advocates suggesting the best way to reduce gun violence is to add more guns into the mix. This attitude is so...American?..It is unsafe to drive a small car in case I crash into a guy in a big car, so I will buy an even bigger car. American football is dangerous, because the guy that will hit me has helmet and padding so I need more shoulder pads, etc

To an outsider the answer seems so simple: if no-one had a gun there would be less gun problems, if everyone drove a smaller car there would be no need to buy a big one, if no football player had a helmet, then no-one else would need one.

Coming from this culture, where escalation is the answer to just about everything, the argument that not arming your cops means that the criminals don't need to carry guns to commit crime and everyone is better off would seem as strange to you as the idea that having more guns at a university is the best way to reduce the chance of someone being shot is to me.

TL,DR: Cultural bias all over this thread.