Poll: Arming the UK Police

[thelonewolf266]

Seriously I'm all for people having and expressing their own opinions but I can' understand why people would want everyone to be well equipped enough to take the law into their own hands it would be a blood bath people who do whatever they want that's the problem in america despite it being a developed country the homicide gun rate is between 10.2 and 15.22 per 100,000 people which ranks beside place like Brazil and mexico much more supposedly violent and less developed countries.Whereas the united kingdom has 0.4 to 0.5 despite the act that we all don't have firearms to "defend ourselves with".That said I realise some people don't the police or any form of authority controlling their lives and being tasked with protecting them that is not going to change and right now in countries across the middle east people are fighting and dying to have to right to a democratically elected government to do these things for them.

p.s I just know some one is gonna say if those people where allowed weapons they could fight back better but america and the united kingdom and other countries aren't ruled by dictatorships people aren't tortured and raped for not liking the current government they are completely different situations.

 

[aashell13]

I guess the reason we Brits don't have coppers with guns is because we expect everyone to be a pacifist. But back in the real world, most people are a bunch of douchebags.

So yeah, I wouldn't disagree with coppers having handguns. Though if one were ever used, I'm sure someone would complain it was too loud, and they would be dubious about using it ever again.

I hear H&K makes a nice sound/flash suppressor...

 

[Nietz]

I picked option two. To me, it makes the most sense. I dislike the idea that every cop should carry a deadly firearm. Take the movie that OT posted. If all the cops carried guns, they would(probably) be hauling out a corpse, but I also have a problem with no cops carrying guns. It is necessary to have a police force with deadly firearms, but it's not ALWAYS necessary. There in lies the problem. I say have the cops carry tazers, cs-gas, clubs and even possible firearms with "less lethal"-rounds, and then have their guns stored away some place within their reach... say a strongbox in their cars, or something. Just don't have them on their person at all times. This way we might minimize the use of lethal force, but still have it close by if there is a need.

I just don't want to have people killed because "they might have been dangerous." I know that it may put the officers at greater risk, but that is something that comes with the territory of being a police officer.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

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?

See that's just it, the police are not supposed to be an "armed force" that's what the "armed forces" are for. It is called the "police service" for a reason, they are supposed to be a service to the public not a pusdo-military.

 

[Wicky_42]

Look it up. The British police forces have the lowest officer involved shootings of most police forces, as would be expected, but they are also shot less. A reduction in guns across the board keeps people from being hurt.

But this strikes me as a socioeconomic fact. We also have amongst the highest social security and public health assistance in the world. Directly comparing countries on a given statistic whilst ignoring everything that lead to the statistic is duplicitous.

Nonsense. Comparisons between countries are always made without a detailed balancing of socio-economic differences outside of academic papers. The only issue you could have with the above statement is its lack of a source and no reference to whether the data is percentage or sum, which would obviously skew the results. If you're going to find fault with anything do it there else there's no basis upon which to have a discussion, if you seek to undermine every point with a comment about a huge swath of tangentially related data :/

I sleep well knowing these men are on the streets protecting us from danger every day.

"THAT MAN TOOK MY PURSE!"
"Don't worry mam, I got this..." Over-kill much?! Lol, what sort of danger do you expect to face every day - an enemy invasion?!

Option 3: Special response teams. You don't need your every-day bobby to be packing, it would just be intimidating, and scattering training around the place just dilutes its effectiveness. Much better to concentrate the armed response into dedicated, highly skilled and trained units that are called as and when needed.

I'd just point out that according to this wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom, the UK has one of the lowest gun related homicide rates in the world, and we are below the EU average. Doing what we are doing now with regards to guns seems to be working well enough to ensure public safety.

^ Why should we worry about changing things? We seem to be doing fine, with no scenes like

http://youtu.be/NT_T9zytit0

and in the even that something like that did happen, I'd be glad that ordinary cops, who are stupid enough to think that the side of a car will stop a rifle round (when they can't even stop a 9mm handgun round), won't be charging into the fray and are instead calling in highly trained specialists to deal with the issue. Right tool for the right job.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Your police can't carry firearms? That kinda shocked me. I like my police carrying guns.
EDIT: Obviously, I choose option 1.

 

[Burs]

See that's just it, the police are not supposed to be an "armed force" that's what the "armed forces" are for. It is called the "police service" for a reason, they are supposed to be a service to the public not a pusdo-military.

*Thumbs up* precisley we are civilians just like you, except we have powers of arrest.

 

[sageoftruth]

If the police can have guns, I should be able to.

...So, the police shouldn't have guns then?

 

[itf cho]

Not even a taser as standard equipment? I sure hope those UK police are paid a LOT of money for the risks they are taking.

 

[Cypher10110]

Option one: All police should be armed at all times whilst on duty if they've passed firearms training

Option two: Police shouldn't be armed with firearms unless they're heading to a call which is particularly likely to place themselves or the public at risk and only after passing firearms training

Option three: Standard police shouldn't be armed with firearms, that should be left to a few specialist divisions such as ARVs whose sole purpose is to respond to high threat calls from ground officers

Option four: No police officer of any branch or division should be armed with firearms

I assume you're aware of the growing number of unlawful arrests in the UK at the moment? If the police were given firearms at this point in time it would be an accident waiting to happen.

There's also the matter of escalation, and the fact that suddenly, the state would have a tool the public could not fight against. If you give the police force guns without letting the public get guns then you've shifted so much power in their favor that you could risk a police-state situation.

For these reasons I would say that option three works in theory, but in practice would be abused by the government as much as it would help.

If I was a police officer I'd be an advocate of maybe option 2. As a citizen I'd prefer 3.

 

[Burs]

Not even a taser as standard equipment? I sure hope those UK police are paid a LOT of money for the risks they are taking.

Im not even paid for it I volunteer ^.^ its not that dangerous.

 

[sageoftruth]

I'm uncertain where I stand on this. The only thing I can really oppose is arming police and then arming citizens to be fair. After all, what's the point in arming them if we end up giving everyone else the same weapons? Sorry if I missed out on the humor/sarcasm.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

I'd say having the police carry a pistol or another small-arm is should be tolerable. I live in the Netherlands myself, and we have a strict no-gun policy for pretty much everybody except police. All officers carry a pistol, and the more specialized teams seem to have submachine guns. I'm totally fine with that. I don't think I need a weapon to "protect myself from the State". It's just asking for trouble.

 

[___________________]

Maybe the police should be better trained in melee for once...that video man....anyway, cops with guns isn't such a great idea. You need guns to solve some situations out? Ok...then just make use of your armed forces instead of sending them to a slaughterhouse in crapghanistan.

 

[pulse2]

I think guns are pretty stupid, but in a country where terrorism potential has become an all time high, I think its perfectly reasonable for the police force to step up their game. As for legalising weaponry? Get out of here. There is no just cause for a civilian to be brandishing a 9mm or any other kind of weaponry, we live in a civilised society and that is the message we are supposed to be depicting to others.

 

[Westerschwelle]

You all seem to confuse "trained law enforcement officers haven a Pistol to defend themselfes with in rare cases of extreme situations" and "giving every bloke at least a Pistol at birth and law enforcement at least assault rifles and hand grenades".

The statement, that policemen not carrying weapons will get criminals to not carrying a weapon either is utterly ridiculous.
Also no one wants the general public to be armed like it is the case in the USA because their weapon laws are totally fucked up.

But why shouldn't properly trained and mature law enforcement officers carry a handgun to help in that 1 out of 1000000 situation were shooting at someone (not necissarily killing) will let some innocent civilian or the policeman himself live?

 

[sarge1942]

why not meet in the middle and give them tazers or guns with rubber bullets, or both. That way nobody dies but you can still shoot somebody

 

[Westerschwelle]

There's also the matter of escalation, and the fact that suddenly, the state would have a tool the public could not fight against. If you give the police force guns without letting the public get guns then you've shifted so much power in their favor that you could risk a police-state situation.

The public shouldn't be able to fight against the state, that's kinda the reason the police exists. The state makes laws and the police enforces them. That's how it works. Else everyone would just run around and picking out the laws they think don't apply to them.

 

[Westerschwelle]

why not meet in the middle and give them tazers or guns with rubber bullets, or both. That way nobody dies but you can still shoot somebody

People can still die from that.

 

[jpoon]

Wow, you guys really are scared of guns there aren't you? One shot to his leg and this would have been over in seconds. I'd definitely go with option 2 if not option 1.