Poll: Arming the UK Police

[Burs]

I am Armed with my baton my spray and my notebook, I've only used the baton to pin drunks down, My spray has got me out of a few scrapes; but the one tool that has calmed a violent situation down more then anything is my notebook

http://youtu.be/QqA3gRjgD8g

 

[Cali0602]

Context: It took 20 minutes for (reportedly) 30-35 police officers to detain the man in the video above.

That's because your law enforcement officers are inadequately trained. Half-a-dozen policemen with batons vs. 1 mentally disturbed patient with a machete... Seriously? Does no one have balls in the world anymore?

Maybe it's the military training that has me all up in a fit about this, but local law enforcement need to have CQC training (hand-to-hand and unarmed-vs-handheld). If you can't control a situation because you don't have a gun, you need to reevaluate yourself. If a weapon is truly an extension of one's self (and I believe it is), these guys have really shown their colors.

Stick one of the Royal Marines in that situation and the machete-brandishing nut-case would have been detained in seconds.

 

[Danny Ocean]

What i was getting at, is that the assailant had too much power in that situation based on the fact that all he had was a machete, yes it is a blade i wold not fuck with, but at the same time, that's all it is, is a blade, that shouldn't have taken so long to get him apprehended nor should he have been such a threat with that lone blade.

oh and yeah i can believe getting hit by one of those damn thing hurts like a ************, but in that same process i'd be more afraid of the machete than the baton anyday, and that is the point i was getting at, he was more fearful than the police were, even when there was a zergling amount of them ready to rush

I really don't see the problem with how he was handled. In the end he was apprehended, and no-one was badly injured. I don't support arming the police with regular guns for reasons I and others have already stated, and don't advocate arming all the police with those non-lethal weapons you described because it'll inevitably lead to an arms race which'll result in guns.

And besides I've seen news footage from the USA where, despite having guns, you still zergling rush peeps with loads of armed cops. When it comes to police cars you lot seem to be positively flippant about them, using them as rams and such!

Even in the situation in the video, had an officer been armed, it could have easily resulted in a death. We're not quite so harsh with our criminals.

See this:

The man in the video was detained without the use of lethal force. Yes it took a long time and a lot of officers, but surely that's a better and more humane option than having two officers arrive, both armed, and simply shoot him.

 

[AshuraSpeaks]

Of course cops should carry...I mean, it's pretty much the only thing that gives them an advantage over your average person. If not guns, at least tazers...though I prefer guns, tazers are too easy to abuse.

That one movie quote from Righteous Kill goes:

"Most people respect the badge. Everyone respects the gun."

Seen at the end of the movie trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4C6wLTPM1w

 

[Loop Stricken]

If we were to give the UK police guns, then we'd need a better class of UK police to go with 'em.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Arming the police should be kept within the confines of special response units. However, every police officer on the force should pass a firearms safety and use course before being allowed onto the force.

Maybe it's just me, but I always think that guns offer too quick a solution, and it's usually the wrong one. Complain about it taking twenty minutes to detain that man, but consider the alternative. Every time someone poses just a little too much threat for a police force that is entirely armed, and the temptation is to shoot them, rather than deal with having to spend all that time detaining them.

The man in the video was detained without the use of lethal force. Yes it took a long time and a lot of officers, but surely that's a better and more humane option than having two officers arrive, both armed, and simply shoot him.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I am Armed with my baton my spray and my notebook, I've only used the baton to pin drunks down, My spray has got me out of a few scrapes; but the one tool that has calmed a violent situation down more then anything is my notebook

http://youtu.be/QqA3gRjgD8g

ah sad i can't check out your video in my country =\

america must not want us to find out your secrets..

 

[Soods]

Police should have firearms, otherwise they will lose a lot of authority.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

What i was getting at, is that the assailant had too much power in that situation based on the fact that all he had was a machete, yes it is a blade i wold not fuck with, but at the same time, that's all it is, is a blade, that shouldn't have taken so long to get him apprehended nor should he have been such a threat with that lone blade.

oh and yeah i can believe getting hit by one of those damn thing hurts like a ************, but in that same process i'd be more afraid of the machete than the baton anyday, and that is the point i was getting at, he was more fearful than the police were, even when there was a zergling amount of them ready to rush

I really don't see the problem with how he was handled. In the end he was apprehended, and no-one was badly injured. I don't support arming the police with regular guns for reasons I and others have already stated, and don't advocate arming all the police with those non-lethal weapons you described because it'll inevitably lead to an arms race which'll result in guns.

And besides I've seen news footage from the USA where, despite having guns, you still zergling rush peeps with loads of armed cops. When it comes to police cars you lot seem to be positively flippant about them, using them as rams and such!

Even in the situation in the video, had an officer been armed, it could have easily resulted in a death. We're not quite so harsh with our criminals.

i will admit they handled it and that no one was hurt, fair enough, and i can see the slippery slope you are mentioning, I'm just saying at most i approve for the non-lethal weapons for the police, if at the least a riot shield handy in most situations.

haha yes we do sometimes, oh and if you are interested, this is a video from my own city using cars in such a way ;] it happened a while ago but still recent enough to mention.

 

[Burs]

I am Armed with my baton my spray and my notebook, I've only used the baton to pin drunks down, My spray has got me out of a few scrapes; but the one tool that has calmed a violent situation down more then anything is my notebook

http://youtu.be/QqA3gRjgD8g

ah sad i can't check out your video in my country =\

america must not want us to find out your secrets..

Its not my video but it is a training video on how to best incapacitate a criminal using only a notebook ^.^

this one for yanks http://youtu.be/sPxe-GhYuFI

 

[Alden Hou]

that video was kind of pathetic, i mean, what country's police doesn't have guns?(UK obviously) but even in Canada, we at least have tasers.

 

[Danny Ocean]

I'm just saying at most i approve for the non-lethal weapons for the police, if at the least a riot shield handy in most situations.

As cool as I think riot police are, I can't imagine the practicality of lugging a big ol' shield around with you.

But then again our police do tend to have estate cars so they could jam them in the back I guess.

 

[captainwolfos]

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.

 

[mrwoo6]

Police successfully and peacefully detained man with no injures. Whats the problem?

As stated, hes mentally unwell. Having some guns pointed at him would have changed nothing. Unless you wanted them to bloody kill him because it took to long for them to get him.

I'm not sure were I stand with guns, but the example you've provided is one of the worst. Guns were not needed, infact, having guns may have lead to a pointless killing.

 

[Burs]

As a British citizen and Uniformed Public Services student, I am delighted to see the majority vote to be in favour of option A.

Any particular reason why or do you just want to carry a gun eventually?

 

[Craorach]

The only situation in which cops all need guns, is a society where the gun is so worshiped that people feel its some kind of basic human right. The only weapon that needs to be responded to with a gun, is a gun.

The UK doesn't need it. I'd like to go home to the UK one day without it becoming a carbon copy of the US or Australia, where people are shot by cops when they could be otherwise disarmed.

 

[aashell13]

UK cops don't carry guns? In the US most cops feel naked without a glock. Lots of them have a 12-gauge or an AR-15 in the squadcar too.

Also, simply having a firearm available does not automatically lead to needless death. In fact, in the case of properly trained officers it will reduce needless deaths by enabling them to respond faster to the rare situation requiring deadly force.

 

[Chirez]

Ok, so I really suspect the poll numbers are skewed by people from the US, where a cop without a gun is considered ridiculous.

As far as that video goes, firstly if they'd had guns, then what? I'm not convinced that shooting a mental patient for being mental is entirely justifiable, though granted, yes, he was posing a public danger, which is why he was surrounded by police. I would like to hear a solution to that situation which does not boil down to 'he's a loony, so shoot him'. Secondly, he had a machete because that was the most dangerous weapon he needed to outmatch the police. I suggest that if he knew the police came armed with pistols, he would be likewise armed, perhaps with something more randomly lethal, a shotgun or machine pistol. Rather than swinging a blade around wildly, he'd be firing off bullets or shot. How is that an improvement? And yes, supposition, but it's an arguable point whether US cops are armed to match the criminals, or vice versa.

Accuracy is really not an issue either. I'd like to be sure anyone issued a firearm can shoot straight, but it's far more relevant that they can make good decisions about who needs a bullet in them. Unarmed, police are required to solve problems in far less lethal ways. This is a good thing. I don't want to accuse anyone particularly of gun fetishism, but it does make me wonder how badly the argument is affected by the assumption that shooting bad guys is a good thing.

That said, I am a fan of options, and given the distinct possibility of armed opposition in some rare circumstances it seems prudent to give a police force limited access to weaponry, on the condition that it can be proved necessary in each specific case.

I do not trust anyone to effectively deploy armed response against civilians. It gives far too much scope for needless violence, and 'last resort' options tend to slide inexorably up to 'first response'. It simply will not end well.

 

[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.