Poll: Arming the UK Police

[mortalsatsuma]

Basically, arming the police force would not make things safer, in fact it would probably make things more dangerous. Americans seem to find that hard to understand as their "cops" like to parade around with visible firearms. It's not a coincidence the violent crime rate involving firearms in England is less than most countries with an armed police force.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think police should be armed, just because. Even if its with dibilitating bullets that wont kill, just stun. I mean, what happens when you're only long distance form of protection is mace, and say the guy is wearing a mask? ANd he's carrying an assault rifle. And you're waiting for the SWAT equvilalent. Its like a recipe to get screwed.

... Then again, with those protests with the students (not sure if its still going on, but if it is, or other one similar), I odnt know if its a good Idea for hte officer to have a gun and some upstart 19 year old gets in his face. I'm sure the officer will have self control, but still.

 

[LCP]

Police are not armed? That's a disaster waiting to happen.

All it needs is some psycho with a garage and some metalworking skills. or with the right connections and there'd be a disaster.

I remember the Killdozer :-D

Not even, I'm pretty sure with the right tools and materials I could build an automatic weapon.

Basically, arming the police force would not make things safer, in fact it would probably make things more dangerous. Americans seem to find that hard to understand as their "cops" like to parade around with visible firearms. It's not a coincidence the violent crime rate involving firearms in England is less than most countries with an armed police force.

That is not a good argument. If we outlaw bananas, you see less bananas in the garbage. Gun crime, knife crime. Doesn't matter crime is a crime. Banning all the guns isn't gonna do anything.

 

[Kryzantine]

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

But are you safer?

No, you are not.

Cops - guns = lolwut?

They're no better than a neighborhood watch.

Not entirely true. Yes, they might have the same stuff on them, but they'll still have a lot of training in self-defence, disarming, etc. etc.

Either way, after watching the video, I wonder why there was not a single officer with a gun. That could've ended this very quickly.

Actually I am safer, 75% safer than my city ever was since records have been kept.

As someone also from NYC, I completely agree. There has been a lot less violence since the 1990s, and the police have definitely stepped it up a notch.

As for the UK, though, I went with the first option. Sure, you guys don't have a lot of gun violence. There's certainly more incidence in America than in the UK. It's just that you guys compensate with having an obscenely higher rate of assaults and muggings. I bet that if officers carried handguns at all times, there would be a significantly lesser incidence of violent assaults in the UK.

Of course, there should be a tier regardless. Keep the big guns with the special units, regular cops should not have assault rifles while the majority population doesn't own a gun.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

OK, forgive me for not sifting through 14 pages of posts to see if this was already posted somewhere but I as I was reading this something popped into my head...


See, before I go and learn how to use a firearm...I'd learn how to be a decent human being first, you know?

And I know I'm going to start a firestorm of a debate with this next sentence, (though, secretly I'm hoping someone has the bravado to challenge this) but there is nothing in the United States Constitution, not even in the Second Amendment, that says people can own and carry guns.

Enjoy the debate!

 

[Sovvolf]

Option 3 thanks, I think the guns should be limited to an ARU as far as the police are concerned. We have enough nutters in the force as it is without arming them. Rather keep it to those that know what they are doing.

Edit: Before I get my arse blown off about the whole gun debate that these things all turn into, I will point out that I'm probably one of the few Brits that wished our gun control was a notch looser than it is now. I also believe its the idiot carrying the gun that is often the problem. However, over here we do have a lot of idiot bobbies that will often make petty charges and grossly over react to a lot of minor crimes... I would not want any of these people anywhere near a baton and a badge never mind a fire arm. Don't want to have to read about youths getting gunned down because they were travelling in a group of three or more .

Which is why I'd rather keep that stuff with ARU's who are a tad more disciplined and only deployed when necessary. If Briton was America and we had the gun crime you chaps have then fair enough, it would probably be a good idea. However we don't have that type of crime and I feel giving guns to every officer in the service would be overkill.

 

[Red Charlie]

In Northern Ireland the Police Service officers already carry Glock 9mm. During normalisation of the police this was supposed to disappear. But as soon as the Terrorism act came in it is unlikely, if ever, that Police Service in NI will never be armed.

There have been no RECENT incidents of police firearm misuse. But during the troubles there were hundreds and it was part of the reason why the policy of "normalisation" was supposed to place.

In the OP's situation, the Police's job is to contain the situation and prevent the suspect from running. I only read the first few pages of the post but I saw someone mentioned about "legal" strikes. Officers on the ground can request more severe use of force in the event of a greater threat were there is a lack of provision for a more, practice way of eliminating the threat. IE: Arm strikes/Head strikes are allowed with permission and there is a clear and present danger to the immediate officers.

Not knowing what happened in this specific incident or the office in command's decision either the seriousness of the incident was not explained, or was and appropriate action was being taken. (Armed Response/CO19 for London.

I don't see why Police need to carry firearms and I cannot recall any recent incidents in England, Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is the exception) were if Police had guns equipped as part of standard outfitting it would have prevented any loss of life.

Also I voted for Option 3.

 

[Wicky_42]

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?!

Those men are interspersed through the city to immediately respond to terrorist threats at high priority target locations (wall street, Times Square, Bridges, Large train stations, etc...)

M'kay. If you think it's necessary, and are happy having what amounts to soldiers walking your streets. Makes me think too much of the conflicted streets of a certain middle eastern country (or two), to be honest - and I get the same vague concern when I see smg-equipped police in London :/ Just me not liking the idea of full-auto firearms being used in a civilian area.

 

[megajon]

i live in England and even though the video shows that an armed unit should of attended. I am very happy that the police here don't carry guns or we will end up like US with shooting every 5 seconds i prefer stabbings over shootings any day. we have alot of knife crime and very little gun crime over here better to stay that way. if cops start arming themself with guns so will the criminals more.

 

[Megacherv]

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

People in the UK can't have guns? I mean that is tough. In NYC it is difficult to get a firearm for everywhere carry, but you are allowed to have one in your home for protection.

We have a different situation, America had the revolution, the civil war, 1812 etc. Guns got around and it was easier to let people keep them for self defence against the other people with guns.

In the UK we haven't had any major ground wars on home soil since the civil war (with muskets and such) so we don't have a circulation of firearms. Occasionally you get a nutter with 20 under his bed or some gang violence but they don't last too long.

Exactly. In the US it seems that people are very desensitised to the idea of a device that can kill being carried around by people out in the streets. Most of the gun crimes/massacres I've heard about have been from the US, it seems to be a common thing in the news. In the UK, when a gun-crime hits the the news, it fucking hits hard.

Jean Charles De Menezes? Ian Tomlinson?

2 things:-

1) Whenever I hear Jean Charles' name, I keep thinking he's a character from GRAW 2
2) Why are we referring to Ian Tomlinson? His death wasn't really to with gun-crime, rather general (possible) police misconduct.

 

[Sovvolf]

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?!

Those men are interspersed through the city to immediately respond to terrorist threats at high priority target locations (wall street, Times Square, Bridges, Large train stations, etc...)

M'kay. If you think it's necessary, and are happy having what amounts to soldiers walking your streets. Makes me think too much of the conflicted streets of a certain middle eastern country (or two), to be honest - and I get the same vague concern when I see smg-equipped police in London :/ Just me not liking the idea of full-auto firearms being used in a civilian area.

I have no problem with them being around. I would prefer that my "officer soldiers" are at the ready when a crazy middle eastern douche decides to bomb a part of my city rather than having to wait for the real police to arrive.

Not to be an idiot here but, given that most of these crazy middle eastern douches that your referring to, tend to do suicide bombings above other types... What good is an armed officer going to be if a bomb goes off? I imagine the perp is already dead so, whats the gun going to be good for? Shooting the remains. At that point you'd probably be radioing for back up in order to get barriers up, get the fire brigade and ambulances down there. Guns not going to be much good.

Even if a bomb was spotted and not gone off yet, they'd still have to radio for the "Real police" in order to get a bomb squad down to the scene.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I'm slightly worried that the first response to something like this is "give police guns!"
There are other ways. Tasers may have a higher fail-rate than suggested, as mentioned somewhere here, but that doesn't mean they never work. And while this guy can take blinding spray to the face and not get slowed down, I'd like to see how he'd do without motor control. You could also allow greater use of the truncheons so that you can smack him round the head.

Its like Commissioner Gordon points out in Batman Begins, there's always escalation. If the majority of the police get guns, so will the criminals. And they'll get better ones.
Personally I'd rather have stand-alone cases like the OP's than gun-powered crime-waves left right and centre

 

[Megacherv]

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

People in the UK can't have guns? I mean that is tough. In NYC it is difficult to get a firearm for everywhere carry, but you are allowed to have one in your home for protection.

We have a different situation, America had the revolution, the civil war, 1812 etc. Guns got around and it was easier to let people keep them for self defence against the other people with guns.

In the UK we haven't had any major ground wars on home soil since the civil war (with muskets and such) so we don't have a circulation of firearms. Occasionally you get a nutter with 20 under his bed or some gang violence but they don't last too long.

Exactly. In the US it seems that people are very desensitised to the idea of a device that can kill being carried around by people out in the streets. Most of the gun crimes/massacres I've heard about have been from the US, it seems to be a common thing in the news. In the UK, when a gun-crime hits the the news, it fucking hits hard.

Jean Charles De Menezes? Ian Tomlinson?

2 things:-

1) Whenever I hear Jean Charles' name, I keep thinking he's a character from GRAW 2
2) Why are we referring to Ian Tomlinson? His death wasn't really to with gun-crime, rather general (possible) police misconduct.

You know what I hear about in the UK? Knife crimes, like women being decapitated by them. I would prefer to be shot in an arm or leg than have that arm or leg chopped off. I suppose if I was a criminal I would prefer my police be unarmed.

If you're referring to the crime I'm thinking of, she was simply a British citizen, she was murdered in Tenerife, a Spanish island

 

[Robert Ewing]

Of course police in Britain need firearms. The legal system is tough in this country, but in a really relaxed way. The criminals incarcerated often end up having better lives than most people living in the middle class. It's a joke that inmates can get leather couches, plasma screen TV's and all the food they can eat (all at the expense of the tax payer I might add.)

Firearms won't solve our hideous legal system, but it will take us one step forward. For example, a Policeman is not allowed to make contact with a suspect in an aggressive way. Now, the suspect can lie, and say it was aggressive for example. In which case the officer would be stripped of his title, and fired. And the suspect is eligible to apply for compensation, and a formal apology, and an inquiry into the state of the police attitude. Absolute joke.

Police should be tough to enforce the law in a country like this. Because it's out of control.

No way, no how is the life for prisoners better than most middle-class peoples life.
People don't seem to get that prison's main punishment isn't not having TV or radio or books, it is the restrictions on liberty that is the real punishment. Follow the law and you have freedom, otherwise...

Also, do you know that we have a reason for not treating the prisoners like shit? If you make prison all about punishment (give prisoners little nice things, or none at all) then they are much more likely to reoffend, which is why we focus on rehabilitation instead. So your tax-payers money is actually going to prisoners, so that they stop commiting crime.

Secondly, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. That rule is golden and must always be enforced. No one has the right to be abused in anyway if they're perfectly law-abiding citizens. And even if someone does claim they were touched aggressively, they spend a long time making sure this was true (why would anyone not claim they were aggressively touched if they would instantly get let off?)

Also, you are living in some kind of parallel earth Britain my friend if you think (I presume you mean) crime is out of control. It really isn't, our crime rates are low, low enough that my consituencies party was focusing on "youth deliquents" and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders as part of it's law and order schtick. If they can focus on that, then other crime isn't too much of a problem.

But it's been confirmed that the reason British prisons are so crowded is because criminals WANT to go back to prison! It's an easier life in there! It's easier than getting a real job and living in the real world.

Tbh, it's a sad country when prisoners prefer prison to the outside.